Modern Theatre
523-25 Washington Street,
Boston,
MA
02111
523-25 Washington Street,
Boston,
MA
02111
10 people
favorited this theater
Showing 51 - 75 of 134 comments
The stone used in the high-Victorian carpet warehouse was brownstone. Didn’t mean to imply that it was a brownstone, as in brownstone row house. Then Blackall pasted Vermont white marble over the lower floors. If you look at an old photo, you can see that there’s a mismatch. But it’s interesting nonetheless. I was just trying to make the point that times change, and sometimes the only way to keep a building going is to adapt it to current needs. If that hadn’t been possible with the Modern, it probably would still be a pigeon- and rat-infested wreck, hardly a positive draw to lower Washington St.
Moving beyond the merits of these two construction projects, I’m just glad to see the area being reclaimed for entertainment use, whether that be movies or live performances. Ten years ago, all three of these buildings (the Opera House being the third) were rundown wrecks whose futures were very much in doubt.
The Modern was neither carnivorous or cavernous! It was a small cinema with a tiny lobby. Of course,its auditorium was large in comparison to a typical ‘plex screen of today. I don’t think that the original 1876 building in which it was constructed in 1914 was a “brownstone”; it was a commercial building. I don’t know what its facade looked like before Blackall adapted it for the Modern.
Omigosh!! The Modern Theatre was carnivorous!?! I’ve never met a meat eating theatre before! I wonder how many people it would take into its cavernous auditorium before it had a decent meal?
Funny that both the Paramount and the Modern get gutted/ knocked down and then one becomes a student dormitory with a small black box theater and the other becomes a reconstructed idea of the past. The effort put into re-creating the art deco cinema of the Paramount would have better been served saving the modern. Of the two theaters I find the spacial volumes to be vastly different. The Paramount, before and after demolition/construcition is/ was an ulgy box shape with some paintings on the walls. THe Modern was a simple yet beautiful carnivorous space that led the eye to wander more never quite comprehending the lofty angles. I was inside both before demolition, and now the results are shocking. Also, the Paramount was never a movie palace, it was a depression era cinema house.
Saving this building would have had to begin decades ago. Come on, it was a great building, but certainly not comparable to the Parthenon. In fact, it started as a well-designed Gothic-style. Should Blackall have been prohibited from sticking an incompatible classical facade on the original brownstone? An acceptable form of “facadism,” perhaps, if you’re a theater aficionado?
Show me the investor who would be willing to cough up enough money to preserve the Modern Theatre as a ruin. Making it safe enough for people to see would have been prohibitively expensive, and most investors want payback. It costs 12 Euros to visit the Parthenon. I’m not sure people would pay very much to see a rotting theater. If you want to see a preserved ruin, walk up Washington Street to the old Filene’s site.
Preserving only the facade of a building, either in situ or by dismantling and re-erecting it, is called “Facadism” and became a trendy approach some years back. It is a joke in the sense that casual visitors and observers are led to believe that what’s behind the facade is the actual building, renovated. The old Modern Theater is “totally gone” for sure, except for the rebuilt facade.
Of course I think the building should have been saved! It is true that there was extensive water damage, and the ceiling of the auditorium was gone, but the stage and details of the balcony were worthy of being saved! Additionally the layout and use of space was very creative. Similar to the Gaiety Theater (designed by the same architect), the floor plans had a distinct harmony and singularity, especially the corridors and rooms around the stage house.
Also when thinking of ways to save an old theater, especially one that has damaged or missing ornimentation work, I feel that it is unfortunate that preservation tends towards an all or nothing approach that requires a gigantic budget. Why not preserve what is there in a sort of romantic partially damaged space. I think about the Parthenon in Athens. Could you image if the Greek government decided to restore the Parthenon to what it looked like when it was newly built? The Parthenon functions sucessfully as a historical monument in its partially ruined and collapsed state. I feel that the Modern could have easily lived on as a preserved ruin.
Aditionally the space, while it would be ideal to continue to use it as a cinema or theater, it could have easily been adapted to other cultural uses without subdivision of the auditorium.
Finally, I am very upset that the demolition of the moden is being called by many a “renovation”. I must emphasize that the architectual space that was designed by Clarance Blackall is totally gone. It is a sick joke that the façade was preserved and that people will be fooled into thinking that this is a good way to approach perservation of historical buildings.
Nice photos.
Nicolas, do you think any part of the theater interior could or should have been saved instead of demolished?
Interesting photos, Nicolas V, of both the Modern (what a mess!) and the nearby vanished Publix.
Photographs taken inside the Modern Theater (Mayflower Theatre) in 2005 and 2007:
View link
please contact me if you would like more information:
nvargelis [at] yahoo . fr
if you have problems with the link, do a search for my user profile “nvargelis” on flickr.com and go to the set “Modern Theater"
please contact me if you would like more information:
Here is a photo circa 1971:
http://tinyurl.com/ya97ytk
Here’s an article about the facade, and there will be a new theater created within the new building behind it: View link
There’s an interesting exhibit on the history of the Modern Theatre and the role it played in influencing Hollywood. At the Adams Gallery, Suffolk University, 120 Tremont St. Nice old photos, as well as shots of the restoration work. Includes clips from films shot in Boston. http://www.suffolk.edu/37086.html
I walked by this site today. The building truly is totally demolished. A sign on the temporary wooden wall between the street and sidewalk tells people to visit http://www.suffolk.edu/moderntheatre for more information.
I’d say yes, if it once again operates as a theatre and keeps the same name.
I’m not sure how Cinema Treasures would handle such a situation- if a theater is totally demolished but its facade is set aside and then rebuilt on the front of the new building, is it accurate to then say that the theater is “Open” again, when 98% of it is gone??
Assuming this happens, this will be one of the very few times that we get to change a theatre’s status from “Closed/Demolished” back to “Open”.
I went to the site again yesterday and now the remnant of the left side wall is also gone, so there is nothing left at all of the Modern. The facade will supposedly be reassembled and placed on the front of the future new building on the lot.
ken mc’s 1980 photo is a rather rare shot showing the Modern during the brief period when it was a small live theater. Note that the Mayflower marquee has been removed.
Here is a 1980 photo:
http://tinyurl.com/d98xlg
A shame I suppose. But the building, by all accounts, was ravaged. Washington Street will probably be better for the reconstruction project.
Those are 2 nice photos, especially the second one. I visited the Modern yesterday. There is nothing left but a busted remnant of the left (south) sidewall which doesn’t even go out to the sidewalk. There is a sign which points out the facade restoration, so I guess they must have dismantled the facade and stored it away for reconstruction in the future. Everything else is gone.
How’s this for an encore:
View link