There are, perhaps, only three northside "draws" to lure Dublin's more snooty southsiders across the River Liffey - the Gate, the Abbey and the airport. But if Ben Barnes, the Abbey's artistic director, has his way, one of the supports of this curious three-legged stool - the National Theatre itself - would be removed to the southside. Just before Christmas, the board of the Abbey had presentations from architects on two rival schemes for the theatre's future - one by Shay Cleary, who designed Arthouse and the new Project in Temple Bar, for a site in the Grand Canal Docks and the other from McCullough Mulvin, its long-time architects - on how the existing theatre could be redeveloped.
Not since Lady Gregory opened Ireland's first National Theatre in 1904 has the Abbey faced such a critical choice - whether to add three storeys to its current envelope and possibly expand towards the Liffey or to decamp from Lower Abbey Street altogether in favour of a purpose-built South Bank-style complex, far removed from its historical site. With UK theatre consultant Neil Morton as its adviser, the board of the Irish National Theatre Society - as it is officially known - is making no comment on its plans, other than to confirm that different options have been under active consideration. Barnes will spell out the theatre's "preferred option" at a press conference next Tuesday.
He is confidently expected to announce that the Abbey's board, having wrestled with all of the issues, now favours relocating to Docklands. But as the Government would have to shell out an estimated u £100 million to fund a new complex, such a move will require the support of Sile de Valera, the Minister for Arts and Heritage.
More well-disposed towards the National Theatre than any of her predecessors, she made it clear last summer there would be little problem finding £50 million to redevelop the theatre on its existing site, in line with the recommendation of a committee headed by the Office of Public Works. Though its report has not been published either, the OPW concluded the Abbey should stay where it is, on Lower Abbey Street. But that was before the theatre received a tantalising offer from the Dublin Docklands Development Authority - a free waterfront site in the Grand Canal Docks area. This pivotal site, part of the former gasworks, has been earmarked for a landmark cultural building under the area action plan recently approved by Noel Dempsey, Minister for the Environment.
Although its Misery Hill address may be somewhat off-putting, the site would face a new, hard-landscaped public square fronted by restaurants. It had been talked about as a possible location for an opera house, but the DDDA, it seems, sees the Abbey as a much more realistic "catch".
Building a theatre complex in the Grand Canal Docks would cost at least £100 million, or double the money mentioned for redeveloping the existing site. Politics also enters into the equation. For example, would that quintessential northsider, Bertie Ahern, go along with the Abbey defecting to the southside from his own Dublin Central constituency? The theatre's top brass, acutely aware of the delicate political situation in which they now find themselves, do not want to be seen to be backing the Taoiseach into a corner. Some may even cringe at the memory of an elaborate presentation they made to him last April, which clearly identified redeveloping the existing theatre as "the only real solution".
The Abbey is also being courted by Treasury Holdings, whose over-ambitious plans for Spencer Dock, on the north side of the Liffey, were turned down by An Bord Pleanala last July. If the long-delayed National Conference Centre ends up being pigeon-holed, the Abbey would be an ideal fallback as a cultural "anchor" for their commercially-driven scheme.
However, it is the Grand Canal Docks that is seen as the real runner to accommodate a national theatre for the 21st century, on a site three times the size of the existing one in Abbey Street. This would provide sufficient space to stage three different plays in a single week, just like other national theatres - notably the South Bank complex in London.
Another argument in its favour is that the building, possibly designed by an international architect, would provide Dublin with a new cultural landmark on a par with the Pompidou Centre in Paris or the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. One of the images in Shay Cleary's feasibility study shows Jean Nouvel's stunning lakeside Concert Hall in Lucerne. Another very real advantage to the Abbey is that once the ex-gasworks site is decontaminated, it could be delivered by the DDDA without any need to go through the normal planning process. By contrast, any plan to redevelop the existing theatre would be bound to run into planning delays.
The third strong weapon in Ben Barnes's armoury is that both the Abbey and Peacock could continue in operation while the new complex is under construction. The alternative of stacking the Peacock on the roof of the existing building would require both theatres to close for up to two years - something of a financial nightmare for those who run it.
As it stands, the National Theatre is an important anchor for the O'Connell Street area and, for that reason, Dublin Corporation wants to keep it there. Its removal to the Grand Canal Docks - or to Spencer Dock - would deal "a very negative blow" to the heart of Dublin, says city architect Jim Barrett. With the controversial Monument of Light (aka "The Spike") now cleared to go ahead as part of the corporation's £40 million plan to upgrade O'Connell Street, losing the Abbey would be more than a slap in the face - especially with a new pedestrian bridge planned to link Marlborough Street to Hawkins Street, rolling out a red carpet for the National Theatre. The theatre itself is on a roll. Its acclaimed production of Medea, with Fiona Shaw in the title role, opened this week in London and it has also featured remarkably strongly in this year's Irish Times/ ESB Irish Theatre Awards, as well as picking up two Olivier Awards nominations - proving again it is a national theatre of international standing. Yet its current premises in Lower Abbey Street is widely regarded as inadequate, little more than a tight box encased in grey concrete brick. The addition in 1988 of a new portico, designed by McCullough Mulvin, certainly gave the Abbey a more definitive street presence, but it did nothing to resolve the fundamental space problems inside.
The original theatre was destroyed by fire in 1951, forcing the Abbey into a 15year "exile" at the old Queen's in Pearse Street. Its cut-stone facade was salvaged by the then city architect, Daithi Hanly, who has been storing it in his Killiney garden ever since, like a bag of old bones, in the hope of having it re-erected.
The new theatre, designed by Michael Scott and Partners, may have been "state-of-the-art" when it opened in 1966, but it was developed on a site too small to provide proper rehearsal space and other essential facilities. At a time when the Exchequer's cupboard was nearly bare, there was no money available to acquire adjoining properties for redevelopment.
Fears about fire safety lay behind the ludicrous physical separation of entrances to the Abbey and the Peacock. Acoustics and air-conditioning in both theatres leave a lot to be desired, while the Peacock's straight-jacket layout constrains the presentation of more cutting-edge drama.
Ben Barnes, who worked there off-and-on as a director for more than 20 years before he was appointed artistic director 12 months ago, is on record as describing it as monolithic, even Stalinist. He has often re-told the story of a boy passing by who peered into the Stygian gloom of the foyer and asked his mother: "Is this the wax museum?". Patrick Mason, the Abbey's former artistic director, was well aware of its failings and engaged theatre consultant Iain Mackintosh to advise on how they could be put right. Mackintosh hated the open plan of the main theatre, where the stage is strangely distant from the auditorium, and suggested that it should be rebuilt with a traditional proscenium arch. He drew up plans, in association with McCullough Mulvin, but with the Abbey consuming so much public money for its day-to-day running costs, there was little enthusiasm at Government level for major capital investment. Now, with the State's coffers awash with revenue, £50 million - or even £100 million - is no longer seen as a big problem. Everybody, including Sile de Valera, accepts something must be done about the Abbey. Tinkering around at the margins by improving different elements of the existing complex would obviously be cheaper, but there is a broad consensus the National Theatre needs a radical overhaul if it's to stay in Abbey Street. Otherwise, it should move.
The key question, as Ronnie Mulryne and Margaret Shewring put it in their illuminating 1995 book, Making Space for Theatre, is how to plan and build theatres that are not only enlivening spaces to work and be entertained in, but also contribute to creating the experience that makes theatre what it is, as distinct from film or television. Because the Abbey is the national theatre, it assumes an even greater cultural significance. It must earn its keep as a major force in drama, addressing Ireland as a whole, and be seen to "give something back to the community". But that doesn't mean it should relocate to Athlone, as Padraig Breathnach suggested recently on RTE's Rattlebag.
Dublin is, after all, a European capital city with the critical mass to sustain a national theatre. And the Abbey has an important civic role, as Fiaich MacConghail acknowledged on the same programme. But whether it should fulfil this role by "getting to hell out of Abbey Street", in his words, to make an architectural statement elsewhere is the real issue.
Architect Valerie Mulvin, who has been grappling with the Abbey's problems for more than a decade, is convinced it can expand on its present site by going up. However, Jim Barrett believes the ideal solution would be to expand southwards to the Liffey, giving the National Theatre a riverside presence.
Though the Abbey might have difficulties acquiring the property for such a bold scheme, as there is no compulsory purchase powers available for cultural projects, a fat chequebook would help. It might even be possible to phase a lateral development of the complex so that plays could continue to be staged during building work.
If the Abbey cannot lay its hands on adjoining buildings, one fallback position might be the Carlton site in O'Connell Street. Though earmarked for a shopping mall and cinema complex, its current owners have made no progress in getting this scheme off the ground and might be willing to accommodate a major northside cultural anchor.
Like relocating to Docklands, one of the advantages of such an option would be that the existing theatre could still operate while the new one is built. But unlike the Docklands alternative, it would provide a close companion for the Gate, instead of leaving it relatively isolated, and might also bring the long-dark Ambassador back into the picture.
Redeveloping its Abbey Street base or relocating around the corner on what is still, unquestionably, Ireland's main street would be an exercise in arts-led urban regeneration. Moving to the new territories of the Grand Canal Docks, right on the edge of Dublin 4, would send out a different signal about how the Abbey views the future of the city.
Although Fiaich MacConghail has characterised Abbey Street as a "dank alley", it could equally be seen as a missing link of considerable potential between O'Connell Street and the International Financial Services Centre. And like other parts of the heart of Dublin, it will always be much more accessible than off-centre locations, whatever way the city expands.
THE Docklands area needs cultural anchors, but should they not be new ones rather than old ones poached from the city's historic core? And if the Abbey did move, what would happen to the existing theatre? Might it, as Padraig Breathnach has suggested, become a venue for provincial touring companies? Or be turned into an amusement arcade? The building could be "deconstructed" to provide a more intimate 400-seat theatre, something the city really needs to accommodate productions by independent companies such as Bickerstaff, Rough Magic or the Dance Theatre of Ireland. As part of such a project, the Abbey's old facade might be re-erected, possibly as the entrance to a basement theatre museum.
But would the Abbey's audience follow it out of town to Misery Hill? Stabs can be made in a business plan at estimating the level of attendance, but this is a notoriously difficult area, as the experience of London's Dome shows rather spectacularly. That's why Sile de Valera's department has commissioned another feasibility study on the Docklands option.
One of the Abbey's fears is that the present "window of opportunity" might be missed, if it dithers over the options. If by any chance there is is an election in June which produces a change of Government, would the new regime look at the National Theatre's problems as sympathetically as the present one? Meanwhile, the DDDA is expecting a "yea or nay" by May.
The Abbey will celebrate its centenary in December 2004, hopefully in a renewed home on the existing site; after all, it was called Amharclann na Mainistreach because of its Abbey Street location. Moving out to Misery Hill, for all of the attractions of its planned dockside plaza, will not take care of the ghosts. As one observer remarked: "Ghosts don't move".
However, as one of those closely involved in the present discussions said, "we're not talking about moving the Abbey from Phibsborough to Sandymount, just from one side of the Liffey to the other".
And who is to say what will constitute the "city centre" in, say, 10 years time? Our old mental map of central Dublin is being elongated to the east and the west by developments such as Docklands and Smithfield. But whether the Taoiseach will be impressed by such shifts in perception, in dealing with the Abbey, is the biggest question of all.