Narrow passage

Rendering depicting wider doors proposed by Regent Foundation.

Council divided over proposed enhancements to Regent Theatre doors

The debate was cast as competing community values. Accessibility versus heritage preservation. Should the needs of those among us who need assistance in getting around trump the desire to maintain the historical purity of a treasured Main Street landmark? How much accommodation ought to be made to ensure public buildings are accessible?

In reality the choice wasn’t nearly so stark. Nevertheless, that is how a project to replace the doors at the Regent Theatre played out at a committee of council meeting last week at Shire Hall.

The Regent’s board wants to update the entranceway to its theatre, which they describe as too narrow and in poor repair. Currently access to the Regent is gained through one of four 29 inch doors. This is too narrow for most wheelchairs, though opening two doors simultaneously offers easy passage but requires two folks to hold the doors. The doors are heavy and lack a selfopening mechanism.

The Regent Foundation wishes to replace the narrow doors with four 36-inch doors complete with automatic door-openers. They have the funds to do the work and are not seeking council’s financial support for the project.

The Prince Edward County Heritage Advisory Committee (PEHAC) says the larger doors will fundamentally alter the historical façade of the Regent Theatre. Moreover they say that the existing doors are compliant with building codes and that an automatic door opener can be used to open two doors simultaneously providing a nearly five-foot opening.

Regent foundation officials argue that two moving doors poses a hazard and increased potential for failure. Both sides note that they have worked through a series of concerns but are stuck on the size of doors.

“Users want 36-inch doors,” said Peter Blendell, member of the Regent Foundation. “The doors we propose will follow original design and materials. We are not neglecting historical style.

Geoff Heinricks speaking for PEHAC, warned the committee against setting inconvenience as a precedent.

“It is not in violation of the building code,” said Heinricks. “This is not an accessibility issue.”

He noted the entranceway to the Regent reflects Picton in 1933 and that it is a critical part of the history of Main Street.

“By maintaining the façade we help to retain the conversation with the community,” said Heinricks. Blendell maintained the change would scarcely be noticeable by most in the community.

“We are working to enhance a community asset, not diminish it,” said Blendell.

Then it was the councillors’ turn to weigh in.

For some it was a clear issue of accessibility.

Bloomfield councillor Heather Campbell argued forcefully that the current doors are offensive and unsafe to those in our community in wheelchairs.

“Rules are not reality,” said Campbell. “The Regent Theatre sees what is happening every day. I do not see 36 inch doors as an outrageous alteration to the façade.”

South Marysburgh councillor Barb Proctor, too, sees the issue as a matter of accessibility.

Wellington councillor Jim Dunlop noted that the Regent Theatre a decade ago was insolvent and near collapse.

“The Regent board has been successful in restoring this theatre. It has done a great job.”

Other councillors lined up on the other side.

Picton councillor Brian Marisett angrily denied that what the Regent had achieved in recent years could be described as a success.

“Maybe we should just repeal the Heritage District bylaw and make it a free-for-all,” said Marisett.

Marisett complained that changes to the Regent in recent years have come at the cost of the theatre’s historical character. He was particularly disappointed when the neon lights lining the exterior overhang were replaced by a backlit marquee announcing the upcoming features in plastic letters

“I am tired of it,” said Marisett. “When the Regent Foundation comes looking for a grant next spring I won’t support it for the first time.”

Most councillors, however, were torn—seeing both the arguments for improved accessibility and a test of their resolve in protecting the heritage of Main Street.

“These appear to be two competing and important issues,” said Picton councillor Bev Campbell. “But on balance it appears accessibility is being accomplished with both plans. The Heritage committee needs to be seen as co-operative. It seems they have been co-operative.”

Mayor Peter Mertens also admitted be torn, but came down in support of the County’s fledgling Heritage District rules.

“It has to be more than words,” said Mertens. “I am being told by our experts that accessibility will be improved by both plans.”

The committee agreed to support PEHAC recommendation.