Publix Theatre

659-65 Washington Street,
Boston, MA 02201

Unfavorite 12 people favorited this theater

Showing 126 - 150 of 203 comments

Ron Newman
Ron Newman on March 11, 2005 at 7:20 am

Unfortunately, I think the Publix/Gaiety has had several strikes against it:

  • The façade is quite ordinary, and not at all memorable — unlike the Paramount, Modern, and Opera House down the street
  • There has been no sign or marquee outside it for many years, so people don’t walk by it and notice an empty theatre
  • It has not had live entertainment in the memories of most people now living
  • As a movie house, it was unadvertised in the local newspapers, and did not show premieres or first runs. The movies shown, at least in its final decades, were often third-run and third-rate. So people don’t have fond memories of attending it.

Add all of these factors together, and it’s hard to generate a groundswell of opinion for saving it, much as it deserves to be saved.

Tom10
Tom10 on March 11, 2005 at 5:26 am

Ron: Thanks for the update, depressing as it is. t

Ron Newman
Ron Newman on March 11, 2005 at 5:24 am

There’s an appeal pending regarding whether the developer can build the apartment tower that he wants, but not about whether he can demolish the building now on the site.

Tom10
Tom10 on March 11, 2005 at 5:22 am

Ron: Sad to hear of the interior demolition. Isn’t there an appeal still pending on the Publix? The city officials should be utterly ashamed of themselves for allowing this act of civic vandalism. t

Ron Newman
Ron Newman on March 11, 2005 at 5:00 am

I looked in the former storefront window of 663 Washington Street, and saw a large pile of rubble inside, which wasn’t there a few weeks ago ;–(

I don’t know why they’re bothering to demolish the interior before they take the whole building down.

Ron Newman
Ron Newman on March 9, 2005 at 8:27 pm

I looked through some old microfilms of the Boston Globe, from 1966, 1970, and 1975. The Publix and the Stuart were neither listed nor advertised in any of the issues I looked at. Just about every other downtown theatre that I can think of had either a listing or an ad, usually both.

I’m curious what would motivate someone to patronize an unadvertised downtown movie theatre. Was walking by it and looking at the marquee the only way to know what was playing there?

dtmbrown
dtmbrown on February 15, 2005 at 8:31 pm

I, myself, can’t believe the saga of the Gaity has gone this far, this should be a protected theatre, a landmark…with the restorations of the Paramount, and the Opera House…I’d figure Menino would be all for restoring this magnificent theatre…with the zoning laws, how could this happen?? Payola?? I do not call this progress…at all..I’ve written letters to Mayor Meninno, and Gov. Romney, too…sure can’t hurt…at this stage…time to write more letters to the Boston newspapers…Great site…by the way..Thanks..Mike Brown

Tom10
Tom10 on February 7, 2005 at 7:21 pm

Any word on pending appeals by Ritz Tower plaintiffs?

br91975
br91975 on February 3, 2005 at 9:57 am

The former Republic Theatre on 42nd Street in Times Square, as was the Gaiety in Boston, was also renamed the Victory post-WWII, a name it retains to this day, albeit in present time as the New Victory Theatre, a slight revision inspired by not only its own rebirth as a renovated venue for family-geared theatrical productions, but the new, overall reconsideration of the block it resides on as well.

Tom10
Tom10 on February 3, 2005 at 8:41 am

R. Newman wrote:<<Also, it was apparently called the ‘Victory’ between 1945 and 1949.>> That’s interesting. Where my grandmother lived, they gave that same name to the local hardware store, all in celebration of the end of WWII, I’d guess.

Ron Newman
Ron Newman on January 20, 2005 at 3:18 pm

According to several Globe and Herald articles I’ve found in the archives, the Publix closed as a movie theatre in 1983 (not 1980 as stated in a comment above). It was never a porn theatre; in its final few years, it shows kung-fu exploitation films.

Also, it was apparently called the ‘Victory’ between 1945 and 1949, when it became the Publix.

Ron Newman
Ron Newman on January 19, 2005 at 11:36 am

the latest from Lee Eiseman of Gaiety Theatre Friends:

January 19, 2005

Recent Gaiety Developments

As Kensington moves toward demolition by erecting staging along the north wall of The Gaiety, City Councilors and Ritz Tower plaintiffs make motions in two venues.

Yesterday at 1:00 PM Boston City Councilors Chuck Turner and Felix Arroyo filed an appeal with The Boston Zoning Board of Appeal to reverse the demolition permit for The Gaiety on the grounds that the issuance was in violation of section 38 – 21 of Boston Zoning code. This section protects theaters in the Midtown Cultural District from demolition unless the Zoning Board of Appeal grants a change of use. Should a theater be demolished illegally or legally in this district it must be replaced on site or another existing theatre restored. The prospect of a requirement to replace The Gaiety should give Kensington pause before commencing demolition, and would encumber the permitting and financing of the proposed tower project.

In another venue, the three plaintiffs in the Ritz Tower who were denied standing in Land Court to sue against irregularities in the PDA process will be filing an appeal this week in Massachusetts Appeal Court.

Unfortunately, neither action seems likely to save our theater.

Tom10
Tom10 on January 17, 2005 at 6:55 am

Eminent domain can be used fairly broadly for “the public good.” Also, buildings can be condemned as being structurally unsound without eminent domain. The owner just has to take the building down. In eminent domain, there’s a process of determining fair market value and compensating the owner. The owner can appeal if he thinks the value is too low. As Ron observes, Kensington owns the Gaiety, and they’re quite happy to a demolish it.

Scholes188
Scholes188 on January 15, 2005 at 2:49 pm

Doesn’t the city have to show that the Glass Slipper is structually unsound in order to seize it under eminent domain?
Kensington should incorporate the theater into its plan.

Ron Newman
Ron Newman on January 15, 2005 at 2:24 pm

Kensington owns the Gaiety Theatre building, so eminent domain is not involved there.

However, Kensington does not own the neighboring Glass Slipper, which the city proposes to take by eminent domain and then re-sell to Kensington.

Ron Newman
Ron Newman on January 15, 2005 at 2:22 pm

Even if the theatre is torn down, which seems quite likely, the main zoning lawsuit still has to go to trial. A judge could ultimately decide that the developer needs to replace the Gaiety with a new theatre in any new construction.

Scholes188
Scholes188 on January 15, 2005 at 2:21 pm

How can local or state government seize property by citing eminent domain? I just read the definition and it doesn’t seem to hold water. Yet local governments are seizing property all the time and then turning them over to developers. How does that benefit the public?

Scholes188
Scholes188 on January 15, 2005 at 2:02 pm

It is safe to say that the theater will be torn down to make way for a high-rise. The interior has been destroyed so unless someone with deep pockets come forwards this theater will be history. It is sad. Do you really think that Guiliani gave a damn about saving New Yorkers from porn shops? Times Square was an area that many people avoided like the plague. But suddenly someone decided that the time was ripe for developing the area.

Tom10
Tom10 on January 13, 2005 at 8:06 am

It’s a very sad day for Boston when you lose a historic theater in a designated cultural district, a theater which has been listed by the Commonwealth’s register of historic places. Thanks to all here, and particularly Ron, for posting updates.

Ron Newman
Ron Newman on January 12, 2005 at 6:46 pm

And from tomorrow’s Boston Phoenix:

Strike three for a historic landmark

Looks like it’s over, folks. The only remaining question is when the bulldozer arrives.

Ron Newman
Ron Newman on January 11, 2005 at 7:48 pm

Sampan is on the ball – they’ve already posted this story to their web site:

Theater’s Days are Numbered

They also posted a copy of the justice’s decision allowing demolition:
Page 1
Page 2
(warning: each page is a 2 Meg JPG file)

Tom10
Tom10 on January 11, 2005 at 7:05 pm

High rises should be on the periphery of downtown districts, rather than in them. If they must be built within them, historic continuity and low rise buildings should be retained in the mix, like the Gaiety and its commercial block. Otherwise, you have a very sterile, canyonized district, particulary with the narrows streets in and around Downtown Crossing. And perhaps I judge too harshly. Maybe the Kensington is part of what will be an enduring urban design. I’m ready to be convinced. Downtown Boston thrived for years with residential areas surrounding it on Beacon Hill, Back Bay, and the North and South Ends, and with people coming in on the extensive public transit system. Will they be drawn by the lifeless buildings that are the exclusive enclaves of the wealthy few? I’d rather have them build another condominium tower in the Prudential Center or over the Mass. Pike than plunk the thing on Washington Street. Let them come in on the Green or Orange Lines.

Ron Newman
Ron Newman on January 11, 2005 at 6:37 pm

I actually think the high-rises are good for downtown — the more people live there, the more they will patronize local entertainment venues. However, a theater should never be sacrificed for this purpose if it’s still usable.

Tom10
Tom10 on January 11, 2005 at 6:31 pm

I don’t know if the “ten taxpayers” suit can be used anymore in Massachusetts, let alone in this case. It was a way of getting standing when other avenues failed. Certain rules used to apply. I imagine residents or business owners in Chinatown might have qualified. I guess it’s too late now, though. Too bad WGBH came in so late in the game. Also too bad that Boston is killing the downtown with these outlandish highrises. Actually, the outland would be a good place for them.