CIBC Theatre

18 W. Monroe Street,
Chicago, IL 60603

Unfavorite 18 people favorited this theater

Showing 51 - 75 of 76 comments

Broan
Broan on June 10, 2006 at 5:38 am

It looks far better, but I don’t think it can really be considered a restoration, more a historically sensitive renovation. It looks pretty nice, but there are a few places where you can really see they had to rush.

CHICTH74
CHICTH74 on June 9, 2006 at 11:40 pm

Sorry if you go to WWW.ABC7Chicago.com it is the 5th tab over marked as “ON ABC7” then it is the 8th show down. Thank You for your time.

CHICTH74
CHICTH74 on June 9, 2006 at 11:34 pm

I can not agree with you more, i recall the balc. You had to contend with the miles and miles of lighting and video cable there simple was no place or way to hide it,so you had to sit in the seat and hoped that you did not kick the cables by mistake or you might upset the show. But that is just one of the many things that thay fixed.
If i recall right 190north did a show about it. Go to WWW.ABC7Chicago.com or go to 190North.com and look under “Archives” or if you prefer send them an e-mail thay are very good at returning with and answer.

Life's Too Short
Life's Too Short on June 9, 2006 at 11:17 pm

No: but I agree. I was there some years ago to see a show. It looked OK. But when you compare how it looked then with the post-renovation photos it was pretty bad!

CHICTH74
CHICTH74 on June 9, 2006 at 8:28 pm

Has any one gone to the theatre since it opened it looks great from what the news and the T.V. spots show?

Broan
Broan on February 8, 2006 at 9:42 pm

Here’s a few items from today on the renovation. They must have been doing press tours. Looks great! A major difference!

View link
View link
View link

PaulWolter
PaulWolter on August 4, 2005 at 7:37 pm

Ok, so tonight I discover that the Majestic (aka Shubert, aka LaSalle Bank Theatre) was designed by at least Cornelius Rapp and maybe both Rapp brothers. This blows the lid off the “earliest” known Rapp and Rapp theatre being the Majestic in Dubuque, Iowa in 1910. Does anyone have any more information on the Majestic in Chicago? I am a real fan of early Rapp and Rapp designs and I can see some design detail similarities with the Majestic and the Al. Rignling Theatre in Baraboo (particularly the broken pediment design over the boxes nearest the proscenium) Does anyone have a good list of early Rapp and Rapp theatres?

teecee
teecee on July 12, 2005 at 11:14 am

View link

Source: MPTV
Caption: Martin Scorsese in front of the Shubert Theater in Chicago Il, 1977.

Ziggy
Ziggy on June 13, 2005 at 5:43 am

Regarding GerryC’s comment of the 10th on altruism. Do you think that Loew’s, RKO, Fox, Paramount or any of the old theatre chains were altruistic? They built these places for one reason; TO MAKE MONEY! If some faceless nameless corporation is now willing to restore some theatre for less than altruistic reasons I, for one, am happy about it.

Scott
Scott on June 13, 2005 at 4:46 am

Ok. I give up. Sorry I took up your time.

Ron Newman
Ron Newman on June 12, 2005 at 5:26 pm

… and let’s not forget that RKO stands for Radio-Keith-Orpheum. B.F. Keith was a real person, as were the Shuberts.

Shubert is a fine name for a live stage theatre. It evokes over a century of tradition.

Gerald A. DeLuca
Gerald A. DeLuca on June 12, 2005 at 4:32 pm

Well, to be exact, one could also say that Mr. William Fox, Mr. Marcus Loew, and the brothers named Warner were human beings before their names would refer to homonymous corporations.

Scott
Scott on June 12, 2005 at 4:15 pm

We honor humans, not corporations? Ok. Should I bother to list all the well-known names of theatres back in the 1910s and 1920s that were named after corporations? How about Fox, Paramount, RKO, Loew’s, Orpheum, United Artists, Warners, etc. These were all corporations whose names were featured on many a marquee. So that argument doesn’t work. How about the fact you just don’t like corporations getting some sort of benefit? Maybe that’s it. It’s that, or you just don’t like tradition being messed with. Which is fine. I like to keep the original name too if possible. But don’t give bogus reasons for it. And even though I agree with your taxpayer point, let me know how far you get with your Tapayer’s Stadium idea.

Englewood
Englewood on June 10, 2005 at 3:20 pm

The names of Shubert, Field, Wrigley (and yes, Comiskey as well) are names of human beings. We honor humans. Corporations are not human beings. The problem with corporate naming is that they are ‘buying’ legitimacy. Bear in mind the tax write-offs for corporate sponsorship, so maybe those sponsorships are not all that altruistic. Remember when Enron Field in Texas had to be paid to have their name taken OFF the building? My original point was that, because taxpayers are the main contributors (usually to build a new stadiums), why not name it Taxpayers' Stadium?

Broan
Broan on June 10, 2005 at 12:45 pm

Well, yeah, exactly, tradition should be preserved, that’s the whole point of theatre restoration. Otherwise, just go ahead and build a new theatre. I certainly have no problem with corporate sponsorship, it’s when corporate ego overtakes the focus of the theatre that it’s problematic. With the Palace and Oriental, the original names maintain the focus- nobody calls it the Ford Center, and I don’t think many call it the Cadillac. They were good comprimises between history and modern economic reality. If you refer to them as Palace, or Oriental, people know what you mean; it would be nice to have the Majestic name known again. But go ahead and let them name it Lasalle Bank Theatre for now; with the way banks are these days, odds are good that it will be something else in 10 years, and maybe the proper name will return then.

Scott
Scott on June 10, 2005 at 11:43 am

Brian – If you had been around in 1926 when it became Wrigley Field would you have complained? Changing the name now to Tribune Field would be an identical act to that. It appears it’s tradition you don’t want changed. I share your preference that the historic name of the building be maintained. Although, the Palace and Oriental names were pretty much obliterated when those theatres were renovated. “The Ford Center for the Performing Arts Oriental Theatre.” Yeah, that really rolls off the tongue. But at least they were renovated. I like what they did at the Coronado in Rockford, IL. It’s still called the Coronado, but there’s a plaque inside designating the auditorium as “The Howard Monk Auditorium”, in honor of the contribution given to the theatre’s renovation. Also, your assumption that demolition wasn’t in the cards is questionable. Do you think the Palace, Oriental, Chicago, Auditorium, and Shubert theatres would all have survived without generous corporate sponsorship? The answer is no, of course. It’s not naming rights, it’s funding of renovation that stirs the drink here as far as I’m concerned. After all, they might get the name, but we get to enjoy the theatres.

By the way, my socialism/liberalism reference, while maybe a stretch, was intended simply to point out how anti-corporate a society we’ve become during the last generation or two. Lots of people complain about them, sometimes legitimately, but they also do a lot of good things. And many of us seem to have no problem working for them.

Broan
Broan on June 10, 2005 at 10:38 am

Well, first off, Wrigley was known as Weeghman Park when it opened in 1916 until 1920 when the Wrigley family bought the Cubs; it had this name until 1926 when it was renamed in honor of Wrigley. What we would find objectionable would be if it was renamed Chicago Tribune Park, since they own the Cubs now. So that example really doesn’t hold. Lasalle Bank doesn’t even own the theatre.

We all understand the reasoning behind selling naming rights, as it’s a lucrative business; two of Chicago’s other centers are the Cadillac Palace (originally New Palace) and Ford Center for the Performing Arts Oriental Theatre (Oriental Theatre). These are okay, because they respect the historical names of the theatre. Corporate sponsorship has become a necessary evil. It crosses the line, however, when it does not respect the historic name of the theatre. If you are restoring the rest of the theatre to its original state, why not also restore the name? If LaSalle Bank owned the theatre, as the Shuberts did, sure. But the name Majestic was chosen to reflect the palatial character of the theatre; it was lost when it was renamed Shubert. The Oriental or Palace might not have as much impact if they did not have these names reinforcing the nature of the architecture.

I can’t see what this has to do with liberalism or socialism, and it’s not a question of the theatre being in danger of demolition. It’s a question of preservation; if you’re going to restore it to its former glory, then do it.

Scott
Scott on June 10, 2005 at 10:04 am

I don’t understand why people get upset over the naming of a theatre. While I would certainly prefer the Majestic, or the Shubert, you can’t expect companies to give millions of dollars to a project like this without receiving something in return. LaSalle Bank isn’t obligated to contribute anything, so they deserve to have their name on it if they like. It’s a small price for us to pay to have the theatre brought back to life. Funny, the name Wrigley Field never seemed to bother anybody. I suppose this sort of contempt for corporate naming should be expected with the domination of liberalism/socialism in our culture.

I live in Cincinnati, and we used to have a Shubert Theatre too. It was torn down in 1976. I wish it was still here. And I wish it was called Procter & Gamble Theatre.

Broan
Broan on June 9, 2005 at 9:27 pm

Here is an article on the Shubert project as well as the Chicago theater district at large.

bruceanthony
bruceanthony on February 13, 2005 at 4:53 pm

I just read that Andrew Loyd Webber’s “A Woman in White” musical will have its pre broadway tryout at the restored LaSalle Bank Theatre.brucec

Englewood
Englewood on January 13, 2005 at 11:09 am

I always felt that when a public venue is being either financed or deed over by a government agency to a private corporation, be it a stadium, theater or whatever, the new name should read: TAXPAYER’S PARK or TAXPAYER’S THEATER. Why not? Taxpayers are putting up most of the money.

LeeMary
LeeMary on May 27, 2004 at 8:21 am

It’s good to see that I am not alone in my thoughts about the re-naming of the Shubert Theatre. Where do we draw the line ?

I do hope that before the re-opening, a compromise can be reached. I like the idea of bringing back the Majestic name, and it would be wonderful if they could incorporate both names with “ presented by LaSalle Bank ” underneath it.

Such a shame that all our treasures are being sold out. ( And I STILL call it COMISKEY :) )

uptownadviser
uptownadviser on May 10, 2004 at 11:30 am

Please correct:

Architect: Edmund P. Krause

AndyT
AndyT on May 10, 2004 at 11:07 am

Okay, here’s the good news: considering recent banking history, this theater is likely to last far longer than either the bank or the bank’s name.

tiny
tiny on May 9, 2004 at 11:57 pm

What do you expect from the city that gave us “Bears Football presented by Bank One?” I still remember when they were tearing down many of the historic theaters in Chicago, and cringe when i go by the New Regal or the Uptown. For a world class city to ignore its past like this is reprehensible…even if Chicago DOES do a pretty good job most of the time. Why NOT the LaSalle Bank Majestic Theatre? Or the Shubert Theatre for the Perfornimg Arts….presented by LaSalle Bank? Or better yet…jsut put a Ticketmaster outlet for the Majestic in each LaSalle branch….put a plaque up in the lobby….and leave the darn name alone? Just some points to ponder….