THEATRE FOYERS.

Evening Star, Issue 20316, 26 October 1929, Page 14

THEATRE FOYERS.

On the face of it, there seems to be an element of misdirected zeal in the attempted application of a city by-law to destroy tlje beauty of the distinctive foyer of one of the leading picture theatres in this city. Dunedin is not a place that is naturally given to excess of luxury and of comfort in its public services and amenities. A spirit of Spartan simplicity has rather been the rule, and its picture theatres until recently were almost certainly the most cramped and plainest of any city of its size in the dominion. The foyers at the two new theatres, with their palms and artistic furnishings, are among their principal attractions. Beauty and comfort are not evil things, and a special virtue .pay be found in them when they are provided, as in this case, without any charge upon the rates. But the attitude of a certain department of the City Council towards the decorations of at least ono of these foyers seems to bear most resemblance to that ol the Walrus and the Carpenter as shown towards the sand upon the seashore. “If this were only cleared away,” They said, “ it would be grand.” The pretext for the threatened vandalism is a .by-law of the City Council, or an alternative of by-laws—- “ one sure if the other fails ” —which forbid, in the case of halls of entertainment, “ placing of chairs and other obstructions, whether permanent or temporary, in the gangways and passages and stairways,” and again ‘‘obstructions to egress.” The safety of the public is the highest law, but it must bo doubted if it has auy relevance in this connection. The regulations which have been invoked were quite obviously framed before foyers of the modern kind were known in the theatres of Dunedin, and the foyer which has been specially attacked was built of special dimensions to allow all the space required alike for movement of the public and for decorations. It was passed by the fire brigade officials and the city building surveyor, but now an inspector of buildings, appointed primarily, it would appear, to look after sanitation, has discovered that, as something less bare than a barn, it does not comply with

f the letter of the regulations. If it was twice or four times the size, apparently, it would still fail to do so. On the information we have received there is a plain case for the council to revise its by-laws. Instead of saying that exits must not be obstructed they should say what breadth of exit is required.