Quote:
Originally Posted by gunadic
So its on the list. You know what else is? This flour mill. If the auditorium wants to truly become a state of the art performing arts center, it won't blend in easily. Would you rather the auditorium fade into obscurity as its deficiencies become more and more obvious? I think the HDRC withdrew its rejection because somebody showed them how much and what sorts of space a modern theater requires.
To you I pose a question. What is more important: the appearance of a place or the continued use of the space? I vote the latter mostly because appearances can always be changed. This isn't a Penn Station/Madison Square Garden situation. We aren't tearing down a veritable palace to put up a basketball court. The purpose of the area remains the same, and I dare say if the flashy bits of the building can draw kids to the Arts, I'm all for it. |
Why does it have to be a choice? There's too much all-or-nothing / either or / "with us or against us" in the world today. Why not hire a good architect who can increase the space as necessary in a way that looks as though the original architect intended it to be that way. Otherwise they should just build an entirely new auditorium. And to draw kids to the arts, showcase the artists they want to see while exposing them to good architecture. Pretty simple.