THE fate of the gently decaying 77-year-old Capitol Theatre in the middle of the City Hall area has been up in the air since its doors closed for good nine years ago.

But recently, there's been a development that has got lovers of the historic cinema landmark - not to mention property developers eyeing its prime site - taking a new interest in the old girl.

This was an announcement in July this year by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) that the Capitol Theatre has been gazetted for conservation, together with the adjacent Capitol Building and Stamford House.

The Capitol Building, previously known as the Shaw Building, was built in front of the theatre in 1933 by the same British architects, Keys and Dowdeswell.

Stamford House is a three-storey classical-style building erected even earlier, in 1904.

Since its closure, some fans of the Capitol Theatre had hoped that the building - quite a striking one with its neo-classical facade - would be kept solely as some sort of arts centre, or return to its roots and be refurbished as a new cinema, or become a venue for live theatre.

In 2000, the Singapore Land Authority handed the site over to the Singapore Tourism Board (STB) to explore alternative uses for it.

The Singapore Repertory Theatre held discussions with the STB at one stage, but these came to naught.

Last year, the STB began the process of returning the site to the state, and this was completed in May this year.

But now, the conferring of conservation status on the theatre and neighbouring buildings has several implications on future development of the overall site.

Architect Mink Tan of Mink Tan Architects explains that the gazetting 'generally means that most parts of the building would have to be conserved in its original historic status before alterations and additions were made to the building'.

This could apply to the interior features as well, which 'creates less freedom for developers to do as they wish'.

On the other hand, the offering of a larger site means 'the developer can view the whole street block as one package and masterplan the whole thing as there is more room to play with'.

According to a URA spokesman, Capitol Theatre forms part of a larger state-owned site that includes Capitol Building, Stamford House and Capitol Centre.

The site is zoned for commercial use under the Master Plan 2003.

Capitol Theatre alone takes up 2,146 sq m. The total combined area is about 14,500 sq m, an increase of almost seven-fold.

The spokesman adds that the 'intention is for the larger site to be tendered out as a single integrated site for redevelopment'.

Property consultancy Knight Frank's director of research and consultancy Nicholas Mak acknowledges that the site does have potential.

'One possibility is to keep the facade and knock down everything else inside like what was done for Fullerton Hotel,' he proposes.

He adds that some of the questions that will have to be grappled with include: What is the type of development that is relevant for the area? Is the Government willing to have fewer restrictions so that potential developers can have more of a free rein?

One plus point Mr Tan observes is that 'there's lot of traffic because of Raffles City and Raffles Hotel and the area is quite abuzz with people'.

If the right mix of food and beverage, retail and lifestyle outlets is proposed for the block, it could 'see a lot of activity'.

Others would like to see the Capitol Theatre retain its individual identity.

Noting that 'we are quite short of smaller performance venues in Singapore', Singapore Heritage Society president Dr Kevin Tan would like to see it converted into a theatre again.

He suggests looking closely at The Arts House as a model.

The Arts House building was completed in 1827 and housed the Singapore parliament from 1965 to 1999. It was converted into the current arts and heritage space in 2003.

And Dr Tan is quick to add: 'Let's not have another food court.'

Whether it ends up as part of a bigger complex or not, Capitol Theatre's fate will interest those who have fond memories of the place.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the theatre was a 'major landmark', says cashier Maggie Lim, 58. She recalls: 'I used to meet my boyfriend here in the 1960s as it was centrally located. We would come here to watch movies.'

Dr Tan points out that 'in the 1930s, this was the place for arts performances'.

Among the great performances the venue witnessed was a recital by the late great Lithuanian-born American violinist Jascha Heifetz.

It must have been a sight to behold then, and a far cry from its aged and neglected state today.

The creamy complexion of the building has lost its glow and paint is peeling off in strips. The forlorn Now Showing sign presides over a derelict black wooden board.

But perhaps its darkest days are over.

Is this article useful to you?