United Palace

4140 Broadway,
New York, NY 10033

Unfavorite 31 people favorited this theater

Showing 101 - 125 of 269 comments

LuisV
LuisV on February 9, 2009 at 9:15 pm

I agree Bway! What’s truly special about this theater is that the church, who beautifully restored and maintined this palace over the years, has made it available to be used by the public for secular purposes; i.e. concerts. This is pretty rare and I look forward to someday being able to attend a concert here someday as well. The groups that play here don’t tend to be my cup of tea, but like Bway says. if I am remotely interested, I would love to go just to expeirience the theater in a non-religious way.

I just found out that the B-52’s are expected to play the St. George on Staten Island later this year. That’s a group I would love to see!

Bway
Bway on February 9, 2009 at 9:12 pm

Actually, here’s a WONDERFUL slideshow on the United Palace Theater’s website which shows how intact and beautiful the theater still is. Simply spectacular:

http://www.theunitedpalace.com/slideshow1.htm

Bway
Bway on February 9, 2009 at 9:09 pm

Thanks for that photo. The place looks beautiful inside. Thank goodness it was taken over by a church that has beautifully maintained the place all these years…. So many other theaters weren’t as lucky, and instead were left to rot.
Now I think it’s wonderful it’s come full circle, and the place is once again sometimes used as a theater again.
The stage still looks very intact in this photo, which mush have been soon after it closed as a theater.

Has anyone been in the place for a recent concert? I would love to see a current photo. I occasionally check it’s bookings. If it’s ever someone I am even slightly interested in seeing perform, and I am available, I would probably go to the concert just to see the inside of the theater.

Warren G. Harris
Warren G. Harris on January 28, 2009 at 8:35 pm

Here’s a photo of the auditorium when it was first used solely for Reverend Ike’s church services, prior to concert rentals under the name of United Palace: View link

LuisV
LuisV on January 27, 2009 at 11:49 pm

Does this theater still have the capacity to show films? The actual web site is not clear though a prior post says that it does. No one, however, has even posted a comment saying that they have seen a film at this theater after Reverend Ike took over.

I mention it because “In The Heights” the 2008 Tony award winner for best musical has announced that the feature film rights have been sold and we can expect a film version of this incredible musical in the next 1-2 years.

What better place to hold the World Premiere that at the Loews 175th Street Theatre, which actually is “In The Heights”!

Imagine the glamour, the red carpet, the attention that it would give to this incredible building!

Bway
Bway on January 23, 2009 at 9:00 am

You can search by current or former names. When you do your first search, as screen will come up, and you can click “former names” and search both current and former names at the same time.

MarkDHite
MarkDHite on January 23, 2009 at 1:57 am

P.S.: Calling it the United Palace or whatever doesn’t make me sad at all, because incredibly this beautiful theater has survived and is in gorgeous condition. It would be only a memory today if the folks who call it the United Palace had not bought it and preserved it!

MarkDHite
MarkDHite on January 23, 2009 at 1:51 am

This naming situation seems to be sparking unnecessary controversy. The list owners should have one policy and stick to it: either list theatres by their original name – or – list them by the current name.

The Internet Broadway Database presents a nice model by neatly listing all names a theatre has been called along with the relevant dates below the current name. Of course they have far fewer tehaters to keep track of than Cinema Treasures.

Apparently the list policy is to use the current name which does create a bit of a conundrum here because the theatre is known both as the Palace Cathedral for worship and the United Palace for other events. So, “United Palace” seems best in this case. Like it or not, the theatre has now been called the United Palace just as long as it was the 175th St Theatre.

My own choice would be to name each page by the theatre’s original name. But even this would cause controversy too, as sometimes a later name would be the most familiar one. But anyway, I don’t have to do the work of maintaining this wonderful site so it’s not my choice.

The ideal would be for theatres to be searchable by both the current article title and any previous names they were known by.
Cheers!

Bway
Bway on December 19, 2008 at 11:17 pm

I am just impressed they are able to book such popular and big bands as the Smashing Pumpkins. It shows that places like this can be sucessful, and there are uses for these beautiful theaters, even if movies in them can no longer be popular.
This revenue is certainly more than can be made by just “being a church”, and hope this helps the congregation stay healthy, as I think it’s wonderful that they have not only preserved a beautiful building, but also opened the doors to allow it to be used as a theater too.

Hopefully one day some of the other old theaters now churches can experience a similar success as a theater venue, such as the Loews Valencia in Jamaica, or the now shuttered and fate unknown Loews Kings in Brooklyn.

Warren G. Harris
Warren G. Harris on December 18, 2008 at 9:16 pm

Last month, two performances at the United Palace by Smashing Pumpkins were complete sell-outs, according to a report in the 12/13/08 issue of Billboard Magazine. 6,586 tickets were purchased, for a total gross of $383,555. Seats were priced at $85 and $45.

Altoblanco
Altoblanco on September 4, 2008 at 9:18 pm

Still going strong as a concert venue, with alternative rock shows…

17-18 Sept. 2008, 8 PM: Sigur Ros, Parachutes (SOLD OUT)

9-10 Oct. 2008, 8 PM: Beck (Modern Guilt Tour), MGMT (SOLD OUT)

For more information, see: The Bowery Presents and Beck: Modern Guilt.

AlAlvarez
AlAlvarez on July 29, 2008 at 5:46 pm

In August 1966 this theatre was part of the Loews circuit release of the Spanish film “Every Day Is A Holiday”, known around the world as “Cabriola” and starring child star Marisol. Released as a co-feature to “Born Free” on a wide sub-run break, the project was designed to launch Marisol into the U.S. market by hiring Mel Ferrer to direct and dubbing the film into English using Marisol herself in both languages. Although the egomaniacal Ferrer claimed to have discovered her, Marisol was already the top Spanish box office star in the world and this was her eighth film. Her previous films had played only in Spanish language theatres in the US.

In a rare recent interview, the reclusive and retired Marisol (Pepa Flores) claims that Ferrer was cold and distant but that his wife, Audrey Hepburn could not have been more supportive when visiting the set, giving Marisol beauty tips and even sending her to Paris for a haircut with a recommended stylist.

Bway
Bway on April 23, 2008 at 3:03 am

For consistency, yes, this was the right decision. If it was “only” a chuch, like the old Loew’s Valencia, now the “Tabernacle of Prayer”, which ONLY is a church, then it could go back to 175th St Theater, as you wouldn’t have Tabernacle of Prayer as the title of theater, as it’s NOT a theater, it’s a church. This theater is a bit unique, as it is both at this time. Seach “theaters” or “venues” at ticketmaster, and THIS building comes up as “The United Palace Theatre” (with theater in the name, but let’s not go there).
I think people are too sensitive, this place hasn’t been the 175th St Theater in almost 40 years, and even though it has only come back to being a theater over the last 2 or 3 years, it IS being used as a theater once again, even if in addition to it’s main church function.
Would we be better off if the place had “Dollar Tree” or “Walgreens” haning over the marquee instead, and the name could be “175th St Theater” on this page? I think it’s wonderful that they opened up the doors to being a theater in addition to their church once again.

If they ever stop using the place for concerts, and it once again is only a church, then perhaps it should be revisited, but the theater operating out of here, even if briefly is called “The United Palace Theatre” on anywhere the venue is mentioned, so the right decision was made.
And hey, we are all here for the same reason, we love these old buildings. Again, we should be happy that it is preserved and oeprating.

AlAlvarez
AlAlvarez on April 23, 2008 at 1:57 am

Off the thread? How sensitive some denizens of New Amsterdam can become when faced with common sense changes…

Ross Melnick
Ross Melnick on April 22, 2008 at 9:46 pm

Let’s put it this way (again): In my mind, it will always be the Loew’s 175th Street as well, but in 2008 it is The United Palace (I am making yet another change per Warren’s suggestion). As for the “Screw history” remark — as a historian, I’m uncomfortable with that as well. That is certainly NOT what this name change is all about. It’s about consistency, which is the hallmark of any database.

I’d like to think that since the building is no longer known as Loew’s 175th Street, then The United Palace is the more historically accurate name in 2008. I’m sorry this issue has caused so much debate. It won’t be the last disagreement, unfortunately. I wish these decisions could come without name calling and such upset feelings, but I know it’s based on deep love and affection for these theaters. Thanks for your input everyone. See you on another thread. :)

FormerFlixGuy
FormerFlixGuy on April 22, 2008 at 9:20 pm

I have to agree – I’m off this thread as well. That building is and always will be the Loews 175th Street.

Warren G. Harris
Warren G. Harris on April 22, 2008 at 9:17 pm

The name seems to be The United Palace (not United Palace). In any case, this will be my last contribution to the listing because I believe that Loew’s 175th Street should have remained as the main name. I’ve canceled my subscription to the thread so that I don’t have to see any more reminders of Al Alvarez’s obscene “Screw history!” remark. The barbarians have triumphed (or at least for the moment).

Ross Melnick
Ross Melnick on April 22, 2008 at 5:20 pm

The name Loew’s has been dropped from the downtown LA State Theater. It is, of course, now listed as a previous or aka name.

Ross Melnick
Ross Melnick on April 22, 2008 at 5:13 pm

You are correct that there are aberrations here and there. How Ken and Bryan keep track of over 20,000 theaters boggles my mind. Sometimes, if users haven’t submitted updates to them, the names aren’t changed. I’ve just corrected the State in Los Angeles to reflect its last name (before becoming a church).

stevebob
stevebob on April 22, 2008 at 4:35 pm

But the policy really isn’t consistent — it’s “in most cases.” A case in point is the one-time Loew’s State in downtown Los Angeles.

I suggested previously that the listing for that venue be changed, since the Loew’s part of its name was dropped in the 1950s. It continued showing films as “The State” for many years, and most people living today who knew it as a movie theater knew it as “The State,” not as “Loew’s State.”

Now that it’s a church, the official name is Catedral de la Fe — but since it’s not a part-time concert venue, at least we don’t need to change the listing name to that!

Ross Melnick
Ross Melnick on April 22, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Okay — I have made another change to this listing: I have changed it to the United Palace. I have no doubt that will probably not win any more fans, but we’re looking for something that makes sense, is consistent with our policy, and, yes, respects the original name of the theater. The problem with these contentious name battles, and I appreciate all of the enthusiasm and passion, is that if we listen to all involved and make a decision one way or another, we are destined to upset someone (or some people). The buck stops here. This was a Ross & Patrick decision and something that made sense to us. The “Theatre” part has been dropped to reflect the flexible use of the building and the name chosen by those who run it. I am sure this will not stop the debate, and I love the fact that this theater engenders so much passion, but I wanted to make sure you knew why we had made the change. Thank you for your support and understanding.

FormerFlixGuy
FormerFlixGuy on April 22, 2008 at 2:26 pm

First we have to deal with AMC wiping the great Loews name out of existence and now our own Cinema Treaures changes the listing of one of the great all-time classic theatres to United Palace?? Is anyone coming on this site looking for the United Palace Theatre? Bad bad move.

Warren G. Harris
Warren G. Harris on April 22, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Changing the listing to United Palace Theatre is ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS!!! If it operated full-time as a theatre, I could live with the change, but it doesn’t. A church deacon told me that 90% of the activity is church-related. If the main name must be changed, it should be to United Palace, with United Palace Theatre as an alternate name after Loew’s 175th Street.

Bway
Bway on April 22, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Howard, I agree, much credit has to go to this congregation in restoring, and maintaining the unbelieveable former 175th St Theater in such beautiful shape. And I am glad that they have also come to the point, where the theater can be used for concerts and other events as a theater, in addition to serving their needs as a church, as I am sure it brings them in needed money too, as this theater is not cheap to maintain and operate.
So yes, credit to churches that take over these great old movie palaces and keep them intact for future generations. It’s so much better than walking into a place like this that is now just another drug store…..

HowardBHaas
HowardBHaas on April 22, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Indeed. And, as pointed out above, “United Church” is all that I saw in the photos as being on the actual marquee!

the name of the building isn’t United Palace Theatre. A very occasional concert series is sold/promoted by that name.

The last name, as a regular theater: Loews 175th.