Newsletter - Links - Advertise - Contact Us - Privacy
 

Shaftesbury Theatre redevelopment secures planning

Bookmark and Share | Send to friend

March 12 2013

Shaftesbury Theatre redevelopment secures planning
Bennetts Associates have secured planning permission for the redevelopment of London’s Grade II* listed Shaftesbury Theatre.

The works entail a internal alterations to the theatres stagehouse and construction of a new strengthened flytower, allowing the venue to accommodate large-scale, self-produced and touring productions.

Finished in cor-ten steel cladding the faceted form of the flytower extension will rise to the height of neighbouring mansion blocks and  has been designed to respond to the brick and terracotta of the existing theatre.

Designed by theatre architect Bertie Crewe in 1911 the flamboyant structure occupies a prominent junction at Shaftesbury Avenue and High Holborn.

Simon Erridge, director at Bennetts Associates, said: “The extension to the flytower at the Shaftesbury Theatre is an exciting and important addition to the prominent Grade II* listed theatre and will ensure the future of the theatre to host large-scale productions. We look forward to working to deliver a design which not only transforms the theatre experience but creates a contemporary architectural addition to this important West End site.”

Bennetts were recently appointed to revamp Glasgow’s Citizens Theatre and won plaudits for their work on the Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Stratford.

9 Comments

kevin toner
#1 Posted by kevin toner on 12 Mar 2013 at 23:23 PM
How many times UR do I have to point out that using the word ‘redevelopment’ as a euphemism for alterations etc. is old-ish hat?

To use it in the narrowest sense of the word would be e.g. a demolition (not selected downtakings) and a rebuilding of the interiors from ground up, whether or not keeping the facade or parts of it: that would minimally be a redevelopment. Try not to be narrower than that or you’ll confuse.

AQ “...Only prolonged and passionate opposition from members of the actor's union and members of the entertainment industry saved the building from redevelopment and it is now a Grade II listed building...” That’s from the theatre’s own site on its history, being threatened with an actual “redevelopment” in the early 1970s. Let’s not muddy the waters!

-

One other euphemism - albeit less concerning than euphemising with ‘redevelopment’ - that you've used here too, which you might want to refrain from in future, is that anything built within the footprint of the original building envelope (even significant building work as in this case) should be termed ‘alteration’ not ‘extension’. You’re far from alone on this as well! Building Warrant Applications usually keep everyone right though, but since things are stopping at planning more often, and/or as a newer generation of architects more often get out at Stage D on projects - not to follow them up for BW, then perhaps an air of wrongly terming scopes/descriptions is naturally to be had or expected.

Remember the [additional upper floors] Foulis “”Extension”” as it was called, which was really an alteration!

Even when a greater mass is afforded atop of a less significant underneath: it’s always an alteration in my book! I’m going to look now to see what you've called RPP’s relatively recent Plaza conversion/alteration; a rarely extreme example!
kevin toner
#2 Posted by kevin toner on 12 Mar 2013 at 23:43 PM
ps: although I'd concede that the latter is a redevelopment as an extreme alteration. Have you deleted your original article on the Plaza development, can't seem to find it online?
kevin toner
#3 Posted by kevin toner on 12 Mar 2013 at 23:58 PM
pps: the 'Architect' mag have today used the word 'resize' to combine with the 'rehabilitation' and 'renovation' of the Amparo Museum by TEN Arquitectos'. Proves that there's a reluctance to euphemise with over-arching word errors out there!
kevin toner
#4 Posted by kevin toner on 13 Mar 2013 at 02:15 AM
ppps: ‘improvements’ or ‘modernisations’ were perhaps valid ‘alteration’ euphemisms long used for decades to describe more radical or expansive refits/alterations, but the newer euphemism 'intervention' has come to our aid as an overarching term to best describe any multitude of changes without debasing or implying that the built heritage was ever inferior. Urbanists have also used this term as a euphemism e.g. for ‘clearance’ and ‘urban renewal’ through to the ‘redevelopment’ of singular buildings. ‘Intervention’ can basically apply to anything from fitments/interior decor through to new towns. So there’s no real need to rely on the word ‘redevelopment’ as a term ever in reporting, unless wanting to use the term correctly, now and again, rather than as an urbanist’s euphemism! That’ll be £1k please UR! C: What you ought not to do is, again and again, euphemise building alterations as 'redevelopments'. Use the word 'intervention' when in doubt.
kevin toner
#5 Posted by kevin toner on 13 Mar 2013 at 02:45 AM
erratum on my last ppps: because of misusing the a word, which I've deleted and rephrased with a new ending as follows, apologies:-

ppps: ‘improvements’ or ‘modernisations’ were perhaps valid ‘alteration’ euphemisms long used for decades to describe more radical or expansive refits/alterations, but the newer euphemism 'intervention' has come to our aid as an overarching term to best describe any multitude of changes without debasing or implying that the built heritage was ever inferior. Urbanists have also used this term as a euphemism e.g. for ‘clearance’ and ‘urban renewal’ through to the ‘redevelopment’ of singular buildings. ‘Intervention’ can basically apply to anything from fitments/interior decor through to new towns. So there’s no real need to rely on the word ‘redevelopment’ as a term ever in reporting, unless wanting to use the term correctly, now and again, rather than as a euphemism for building alterations! That’ll be £1k please UR! C: Use the word 'intervention' when in doubt.
Egbert
#6 Posted by Egbert on 13 Mar 2013 at 11:49 AM
Blimey, thanks Kevin.
Frank Lloyd Wrong
#7 Posted by Frank Lloyd Wrong on 13 Mar 2013 at 11:52 AM
Kevin
Are you lonely?
kevin toner
#8 Posted by kevin toner on 13 Mar 2013 at 13:00 PM
No FLW, merely underworked!

ps Not much else to muse on because of absence of drawings, but would look forward to reading an AR article on this genre of interventions should enough quality ensue in them to warrant journalism.

Shouldn't halt commenting though, there's enough to discuss, but I've hogged the thread enough: over to you, until the next time!
kevin toner
#9 Posted by kevin toner on 13 Mar 2013 at 20:01 PM
My pleasure, Egbert. I've got nothing else to do, so might as well educate when I can or as more often is the case be educated myself! Many thanks.

Post your comments

 

All comments are pre-moderated and
must obey our house rules.

 

Back to March 2013

Search News
Subscribe to Urban Realm Magazine
Features & Reports
For more information from the industry visit our Features & Reports section.