United Palace of Cultural Arts

4140 Broadway,
New York, NY 10033

Unfavorite 33 people favorited this theater

Showing 101 - 125 of 234 comments

Bway
Bway on December 19, 2008 at 3:17 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.

Altoblanco
Altoblanco on September 4, 2008 at 1:18 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.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on July 29, 2008 at 9:46 am

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 22, 2008 at 7:03 pm

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.

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on April 22, 2008 at 5:57 pm

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 1:46 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 1:20 pm

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

Ross Melnick
Ross Melnick on April 22, 2008 at 9:20 am

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 9:13 am

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 8:35 am

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 7:02 am

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 6:26 am

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.

Bway
Bway on April 22, 2008 at 6:08 am

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 6:04 am

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.

Ken Roe
Ken Roe on April 22, 2008 at 5:53 am

On the official business card handed to me by the ‘operations manager’, when I was setting up my Cinema Theatre Association visit to New York in November 2007, has the name printed:
Christ United Church – The Palace Cathedral

HowardBHaas
HowardBHaas on April 22, 2008 at 5:11 am

When I wrote last night, the theater name on this website literally read:
The Palace Cathedral / United Palace Theatre

That combo name, complete with hypehn rather than “aka” looked inappropriate for this website, and was why I commented.

That combo name has since been modified or corrected to the singular “United Palace Theatre”

I want to repeat what I wrote earlier, and can be said of other theaters, too:
We all owe much gratitude to churches such as this one, and leaders such as Reverend Ike, who have lovingly restored, maintained, and operated movie palaces. Before concerts began, this church had already welcomed visitors.

markp
markp on April 21, 2008 at 8:12 pm

Somebody heard you. It is now called the “United Palace” and will show up as such on the recent comments section.

Bway
Bway on April 21, 2008 at 7:47 pm

And truly, the reason that the policy of the site is to have the current name as the main title, and all other names as “former” names, is because the site is set up for the general public. Someone walking by this theater today, and curious about it, and googling what it says currently on the marquee today is brought to this page. Aside from theater buffs, or some historians, no one will have any idea what the name of this theater would have been almost 40 years prior (and that goes for any theater). Someone walking past the Nokia Theater may not even know it was called the Astor Plaza Theater just 3 years ago…..much less a theater name from 40 years ago. I understand the reason for that policy of the site, and it must be consistent. I know it’s painful to lose the original name of “175th St Theater” as the main name….but I don’t think there are theater pages were exceptions to this rule are made, no matter how significant the theater is. For example, if they (for arguments sake) changed the name of Graumann’s Chinese Theatre to the “Hollywood Blvd Theatre” and that’s how it was operating….the name WOULD have to be changed if the policy is to remain consistent on the site. Thankfully that isn’t happening, but that’s what would happen.

Now lets get back to what we come to this site for, to enjoy the history of these great buildings. And think of this alternative….we could tragically be talking here on this page about how beautiful the 175th St Theatre WAS with it’s name still as the main name….if the theater had been gutted 38 years ago for retail…..let’s be happy the least of this theater’s “problems” is it’s current name. I much rather see this name up there, than the original name there if the theater was no longer operating, and instead you could be buying dollar store items inside instead…..

Al Alvarez
Al Alvarez on April 21, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Thank you CT. This page is now a tribute to a living preserved theatre and not another tombstone to memories of a dead one.

HowardBHaas
HowardBHaas on April 21, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Just to make this clear, I was being sarcastic in regard to my proposed further expansion of the current long, complicated name.

Hands up, now, how many Cinema Treasures fans will remember to look for this theater as “The Palace Cathedral”?

HowardBHaas
HowardBHaas on April 21, 2008 at 6:34 pm

The marquee says United Church.

Perhaps that should also be added to

The Palace Cathedral / United Palace Theatre

since Loews 175th was too simple.

Perhaps
“The Reverend Ike’s The Palace Cathedral, presenting half a dozen concerts a year as United Palace Theatre, and otherwise known as United Church

Bway
Bway on April 21, 2008 at 7:17 am

I didn’t say they would go to cinematreasures. I said they would be searching for the the United Palace Theater on ticketmaster (or wherever). That is because that is the CURRENT name of the theater. You misunderstood why I mentioned that. I meant it that they wouldn’t be searching ticketmaster under “175th St Theater”, which is NOT the current operating name of this theater. This website, in most of my experience here (unless you can point me to some theater that this isn’t true) uses the CURRENT name as the title, which is the United Palace Theatre.

But that all an aside, at the very least, “United Palace Theatre” should be an aka name here. As that IS the current name for the THEATER operation of this building.

Bway
Bway on April 20, 2008 at 8:34 pm

And by the way, while yes, it is not used particularly often as a concert venue, it does have some events scheduled according to Ticketmaster:

View link

And also according to the link Al posted a few posts up:

View link

Someone searching for those tickets at this venue wouldn’t be able to seach for them looking at the “175th St Theater”, as it hasn’t existed in almost 40 years. But would find them under the United Palace Theater, the name of the theater the concerts play at.

Bway
Bway on April 20, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Howard. No offence, but what the heck is “Get a life”. Why would you even say something like that? Where have I gotten “out of line”? By having “the nerve” to suggest that a theater name may need to be changed on a website? All I was suggesting is an observation about a name of a theater, and how it’s listed on the site, perhaps (or perhaps not) against the policy of how names are listed by current use. I am afraid YOU should get a life if you can’t handle an adult conversation/debate on it. At least Warren respectfully disagreed with me.

“Get a Life”? Is that necessary? The nerve of me to to suggest such a thing. Geesh.