First, I really like the Guthrie Theatre building. I've been attending
plays there for 30 years now. For years, I had season tickets and even my
own favorite seat (A76). I've spent some really enjoyable hours in that
building. Even worked in their backstage shops for a short while.
But, come on folks! If the Guthrie Theatre building isn't
demolished, what will we do with it?
I haven't heard of anyone interested in buying it.
Do you want the city to buy it, and then try to find someone to
rent it from us? I don't know of any theatre company in town that could
afford the rent on a building that size -- the Guthrie had to constantly
fund raise to pay it's bills -- there were very few years when ticket sales
covered the Guthrie's expenses.
Or do you think the city should rent it out at less than the
actual costs? Another continuing drain on city finances! Seems to me that
we taxpayers already own too many theatres in Minneapolis! (And most of
them are operating at a loss, if they are operating at all. Some, like the
Shubert are sitting empty because no one can figure out a way to open it
without losing their shirt! So we taxpayers paid what, about $25/taxpayer,
to buy & move that building, which now sits empty.)
--------------------------
And as far as architectural significance, what's there today as the Guthrie
building is far from what Ralph Rapson designed. The main visual feature,
the front screen, was torn down many years ago, because it was too costly
to maintain. And there have been 2 additions made to the building since
the original design. It isn't the same as his 1963 design.
Personally, I'm not very fond of Ralph Rapson's designs. I've had the
opportunity to live or work in several Rapson designs over the years, and I
was not impressed with them. He seems to me to be what I call an
"Architect's architect" -- he designed for his fellow architects, rather
than for the people who occupied them. His buildings looked pretty from
the outside, impressed boards of directors, and often won awards from
Architectural associations, but they didn't function very well for the
people who had to live or work within them. Many of them, like the Guthrie
theatre building, had to be redesigned/ remodeled/ rebuilt fairly soon
after they were put into use. To me, that doesn't say much about the
architectural goal of 'meeting the needs of the building's users'. (He did
produce good kids, though. In my opinion, his kids have done (and are
doing) more to improve Minneapolis than his buildings did.)
>Message: 10
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 20:29:57 EST
>Subject: Re: [Mpls] Guthrie Demolition
>
>What a concept! Walker Art Center Demolishes Cultural Icon Guthrie Theatre
>Building to Increase Parking and Green Space! Citizens say "Whoops!" Don't
>you hate it when that happens - again - and again - and again...
>
>A community that demolishes the very cultural icon that put it on the map
>(redeveloping it as a combination parking facility and green space) while
>championing the cliche-ridden Block E plan and an office park for the new
>riverfront neighbor leaves me almost speechless.
>
>All along I thought that the Walker - of all institutions! - recognized the
>significance of the Guthrie structure and would incorporate it into their
>expansion plans.
>
>PS:Just a thought: When the Guthrie and its thousands of patrons (and any
>vestige of its memory) is exorcised from Vineland Place, where's the parking
>stampede going to come from?
>
>Ann Berget
>Kingfield 10-10
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
