| Thread Review for Auditorium temperature (newest post first) |
|
chrisball |
Posted on 4:42 pm on June 25, 2002 |
| Thank heavens for bushes - it's much easier being a bloke. |
| |
|
mmebahorel |
Posted on 10:36 am on June 24, 2002 |
Several responses at once:
First, not true about the ideally staggered intervals. The Tartuffe five minute warning could be heard about five minutes into the South Pacific interval, which meant there was a ten minute overlap between them (approximately). And of course, with the Cottsloe tacked onto the back like that, it's a hike to the rest of the complex.
Second, the Victorians just didn't go. Royal Albert Hall was constructed without those areas because you just didn't talk about it.
In pre-Victorian times, women often did not wear any undergarments at all -- a shift under the dress, yes, but no pants. Times of need, for the ladies who would be attending the theatre, would have been spent in bed with a bundle of rags between the legs. As for, say, dinner parties, well, if you look at certain renaissance era paintings, you see little boys carrying pots. Skirts were wide enough, and shoes were high enough, you just motioned one of them over to you in a corner of the garden, he popped under with the pot, and there you go. By the 1850s, however, women were wearing more in the way of undergarments and things just weren't quite so simple. But also considering that wearing an 1860s corset, you woudn't want to eat or drink much anyway. I think it was probably accurate that Scarlett O'Hara would have been eating prior to the barbecue, because nothing was going in there after she got that corset cinched up. Worst was the hobble skirts of the 1910s, I would think. You would have to completely undress, because the bottom of the skirt was much too narrow to be able to pull it up around the waist. Not to mention the 1880s and the difficulty the flat-fronted skirt with huge bustle would have presented.
I think that when you were out, you just didn't go. At a dinner party, there would be the staff of the host to assist in any needs of that sort. Clothing was so complex that to do much, you needed help. And the people wearing not so complex clothing were usually not at the theatre.
|
| |
|
Kathryn |
Posted on 5:17 pm on June 23, 2002 |
| Amazing. And I bet there was more room under the average crinoline than in a toilet cubicle at the Theatre Royal.
|
| |
|
chrisball |
Posted on 6:08 am on June 22, 2002 |
| Well, here's an interesting fact. The crinoline was used as a cubicle in times of need. How cool is that?
|
| |
|
Kathryn |
Posted on 8:03 pm on June 21, 2002 |
Out of purely idle and vulgar curiosity, how did the Victorians manage to perform this function, with the many layers of clothing they had? Did they just not drink for 24 hours beforehand? Or did they have chamberpots conveniently stashed under the seats?
|
| |
|
nicol |
Posted on 2:58 pm on June 21, 2002 |
You've never queued for the loo at the Barbican, Chris? D'oh!
All together girls, One Two Three:
YOU'RE A MAN � � �
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
|
| |
|
chrisball |
Posted on 2:33 pm on June 21, 2002 |
I've never queued at the Barbican, and the bar is right above the loos! Nicol - I think it takes longer because the average age of the Barbican theatregoer is around 103.
|
| |
|
Lucy |
Posted on 1:28 pm on June 21, 2002 |
| The National is brilliant! The theatres all have intervals at different times. Just nip up (or down) the stairs to the other theatre's facilities. I've never queued there!
|
| |
|
mmebahorel |
Posted on 8:17 am on June 21, 2002 |
Ah, but see, the drink is what necessitates the ladies, so they're trying to keep traffic to a minimum after the show as well *g*.
Considering what they have to work with, I think the Palace does a fair job of wedging in as many stalls as possible. The National should have been built with larger facilities -- three stalls on each side isn't really enough for the Olivier, and I've not braved either of the other two. The Cottesloe foyer is awful, though. I hate crowds. So many are so narrow, though -- it's impossible for people to be washing their hands and have others get through to the stalls. Drury Lane, Apollo Victoria, Palladium . . . feel free to add to the list. Most American restrooms are constructed so that the toilets and the sinks are in separate rooms, which makes it much easier to wash your hands and to access the stalls. I think it's another function of having so many new theatres in the US, though. I mean, the oldest theatre in Chicago is the Auditorium, and it was built with electric lights in 1887. So you kind of expect that it would be rather differently constructed than the Drury Lane.
|
| |
|
nicol |
Posted on 5:10 pm on June 20, 2002 |
The Barbican??? It's one of the worst, and their interval is usually only 15 minutes. The queues spring up quicker than Beckham's hair, and there are no local bars nearby to escape into.
The way the seating is laid out, unless you're on the end of the row and can make a quick exit I defy anyone to manage both a drink and the ladies. Of course it helps if you have a handy male available to queue for your drink...
|
| |
|
Lucy |
Posted on 4:20 pm on June 20, 2002 |
| Well Chris! You seem to be the leading expert on female toilet facilities...interesting
|
| |
|
Kathryn |
Posted on 3:32 pm on June 20, 2002 |
| Yes I was thinking of the Barbican too;( better toilets, legroom, air conditioning...) But modern theatres will always have the edge as far as basic comfort is concerned. People weren't so picky in the olden days.
|
| |
|
chrisball |
Posted on 2:17 pm on June 20, 2002 |
| The Barbican Theatre . . .
|
| |
|
Kathryn |
Posted on 8:16 pm on June 19, 2002 |
| OK, all you seasoned theatregoers. Which London theatre wins the SOLT award for Best Female Ablution Provision?
|
| |
|
mmebahorel |
Posted on 8:08 pm on June 19, 2002 |
Many men, even when sober, have problems aiming. Let's put it that way.
The best solution I've seen thus far has been at the Auditorium Theatre in Chicago. They have two handicapped toilets on the level, then in the basement they've been able to expand the women's toilet to something along the order of thirty stalls, and there are ushers to facilitate the process of determining if one really did open up down at the end or not.
The construction of the theatre really determines what sort of renovations of that sort can be done, especially in historically listed buildings like the Auditorium and quite a few theatres in London. Sometimes the way the building is held up makes it difficult to carve in areas for additional toilets.
Such is the difficulty of being female.
|
| |
|
chrisball |
Posted on 6:21 pm on June 19, 2002 |
I blame the designers. Give a designer an inch and he or she will take a yard. Perhaps you should all petition SOLT - the Society Of London Toilets . . .
|
| |
|
Lucy |
Posted on 2:15 pm on June 19, 2002 |
| Judging by the smell drifting out of some of them I'd agree! But when men rarely use them do they need the same amount of cubicles. Ummmmm...NO
|
| |
|
chrisball |
Posted on 2:13 pm on June 19, 2002 |
Unisex loos? Urggghhh. The majority of men are animals when it comes to bathroom etiquette. I find most male washrooms turn my stomach, and I'm a bloke. Believe me, you are better off with your legs crossed!
All the best,
Chris
|
| |
|
Kathryn |
Posted on 5:47 pm on June 17, 2002 |
| So what's the solution? Unisex loos would help. I'm tired of spending the second half of every show with my legs crossed.
|
| |
|
chrisball |
Posted on 4:26 pm on June 17, 2002 |
That's 'cos men stand up, don't powder their noses, and rarely wash their hands.
(That's also why I try to use the ladies at any opportunity.)
|
| |
Post reply to