Massey’s future merits thoughtful response

Click on the title to read the article.

EXCERPT:

Ask someone to name five defining features of the Royal City, and along with Queen’s Park and the Fraser River, you’d likely hear them ring off the theatre named for Canada’s first Governor General.

The 60-year-old Massey has a magnetic appeal, drawing thousands who see our city as something more than a patch of pavement separating their home in Surrey from their work in Burnaby.

(Though the Massey Theatre Society’s economic impact stats aren’t too impressive. They say 100,000 people come each year, and spend an average $3 each. That only totals $300,000)

The theatre also charms by pretty much paying its own way—ticket sales alone cover 82 per cent of operating costs. By contrast, the Burr was a sinkhole that depended upon city bailouts.

COMMENT:
In Vancouver, theatres of the same vintage were saved for the same reasons the Massey should be saved. Think of the Orpheum Theatre and the Stanley Theatre. These two theatres were saved because of their unique size, theatre production amenities and acoustical properties. These are the reasons to save the Massey Theatre. Old things are not inherently bad and outdated. There must be proof. The reports say that the theatre is in very good repair. As heritage expert Don Luxton has said: Luxton also scoffed at the $18-million figure, and thinks the theatre could be upgraded for far less. He argued that engineers’ reports vary wildly according to their terms of reference.  “If you say, ‘Make this theatre into a state of the art blah blah blah, and make sure it’s high because we really want to tear it down,’ [it would be high]. Go to someone else and say, ‘Maybe we don’t have to replace the seats, and maybe it just needs a coat of paint,’ [it would be lower].” – John Oliver