Sir, - In my press briefing "Spring Forward: Programme and Plans for 2001 at the National Theatre" I articulated the clearly reasoned position of the Abbey Theatre with regard to the siting of the new building. Our preference for the re-location to Grand Canal Harbour is based on its capacity to deliver a state of the art theatre with side and rear stages and a concourse of public facilities which will increase access and allow the Abbey to fulfil more fully its civic remit. The fast track planning arrangements, the proposed public transport infrastructure, the avoidance of a lengthy, expensive and disruptive closure period, the fronting onto a large public square and the presence of water were all added incentives. To suggest, as Fintan O'Toole did in his ill-judged article ("Frailty, thy name is Abbey Theatre", February 10th.) that our only rationale for moving to Grand Canal Harbour is "that the new site is free" is an insult to the diligence of the Abbey board and executive and is a crude supposition from a journalist whose reputation for scrupulosity and reasoned argument has spectacularly deserted him on this occasion.
The endorsement of the Grand Canal Harbour option is coloured by a belief that the existing Abbey Theatre is inadequate to meet the proper ambitions of a national theatre in the twenty first century. The only real alternative to re-location is a significant extension of the current site to Eden Quay. I specifically said at our press conference that we had reopened "the enquiries surrounding an extension of the site through the purchase of additional properties" and that "these enquiries are ongoing". But because I had to be labelled as the man who wants to move the Abbey to the Southside the statement on the building was selectively reported to reflect that position. I was therefore pleased to be offered the opportunity of an opinion column in The Irish Times on February 10th to redress what I saw as an imbalance in the coverage. Imagine my dismay when I opened the paper on Saturday morning to find that my carefully worded article had been crudely sub-edited to re-enforce the very rigidity I was trying to ameliorate. Far from restoring balance and calming the situation this article only served to further polarise the argument. On a personal level it made me look both belligerent and politically naive to be re-stating a black and white position in the face of considerable high-level political opposition.
In my article ("When the State of Art needs a Change" February 10th) I re-iterated the case for re-location and having dealt with the potential alternative usage of the current Abbey building I went on, in the edited out section, to demonstrate that we had not closed our minds to options other that the one we now favoured. I wrote: "Our own explorations of the possibility of extending the Abbey to the river at Eden Quay have not been encouraging but as I said at our press briefing on Wednesday we have not ruled this or other options out. The very use of the term `preferred option' implies flexibility. We are therefore encouraged that Minister de Valera indicated on Thursday that other possible solutions to this situation have also not been ruled out by her."
This section of the article did not serve the adversarial stance the press is determined we take to provoke an equally adversarial response from the Taoiseach and his government. We contend that this is a serious and complex issue and that The Irish Times do us all a disservice by attempting to orchestrate the protagonists into pugilistic positions which are both unhelpful and ultimately unproductive.
If, through urban regeneration, the improvement and extension of the public transport infrastructure and the spanning of the Liffey at Macken Street, the definition of what constitutes the centre of the city expands towards the sea then we might all be happy in twenty years time if we have a splendid landmark cultural building at Grand Canal Harbour which could do for Dublin what the Sydney Opera House does for that city. It equally may transpire that we end up with river frontage at Eden Quay and a new National Theatre which links the regenerated O' Connell Street area with the IFSC and the Grand Canal Harbour.
This is a time for courage and vision. It is time to dream a bigger dream and move beyond the type of narrow tribal arguments advanced by Senator Norris when he speaks of asset stripping in the North inner city. We believe that this is a matter of the utmost importance not just for the theatre and its public but for the city and the nation. The exhaustive examination of options and declaration of preference comes following the utmost diligence and care. On our part we believe, as we approach the centenary of this great theatre, that we, as its temporary guardians, have an enormous responsibility to all the people of the state to ensure a sustainable national theatre building for the 21st. century which we can all enjoy and be proud of. - Yours, etc.,
Ben Barnes, Artistic Director, The Abbey Theatre, Lr Abbey Street, Dublin 1.