Kings, you’ve just got that button on your mouse fixed. One of the first signs of its impending doom is multiple ‘clicks’ which result in multiple posts such as above, in case you were wondering.
I stand corrected as to the relative seating capacity and proximity to the “huge” former ALBEMARLE. I stand by my observations, but as Bob so well puts it: “It ain’t easy folks.”
The city owns the property, so until such time as they want to move on the matter, forming a not-for-profit would serve little purpose. At its most noble vision, a politician, such as the borough president, works to implement what his constitutents want, but in reality the works of politicians are not so noble. It will require of those wishing to save the KINGS, someone on the political ‘inside’ who can find out the real attitude of the politicos, contrary to whatever they may be saying ‘for public consumption’ as the saying goes.
Obviously, the theatre is not high on the politicos' list of problems, especially since (unlike Disney and the NEW AMSTERDAM) there does not appear to be any big money in the background. Yes, folks, the KINGS will never return to showing movies, so you have to interest a developer with BIG BUCKS or DEEP, DEEP POCKETS to become interested in order for there to be any realistic hope of renewal. That athlete who wanted to subdivide the place realized that even his pockets were not deep enough to withstand the tens of millions this job would require before a penny is received as income. In this country, without an assured high return on investment, 99.9% of would-be investors will back off. Disney did it for image in Manhattan, not the blue collar suburb that Brooklyn is perceived to be. What Brooklyn-based entity is willing to take the risk here in their own backyard? Even the tax-free Jehovah’s Witnesses with their HQ in Brooklyn did not take on the KINGS (assuming the borough would have let them). They had to go to Jersey City to the former STANLEY (which is about 2000 seats smaller than the KINGS). Does this say something about Brooklyn politics? Are other entities scared off of getting involved with the politicians there? If so, and given the ownership, we could all be wasting our time on a noble, but lost cause. Maybe those in the area should turn their efforts toward the former BROOKLYN PARAMOUNT, and try to encourage LIU to restore it as a showcase of some sort, though I don’t know how they would turn a profit on it.
Lest anyone misconstrue my words above, I will append this ending: So let it be that concerned citizens will band together to never let such an end occur, but to instead to restore this once theatrical jewel.
Sad to say, it would not be a “peaceful death.” Derelect buildings typically stand until some part of them falls onto a public way or neighboring property and someone complains or is injured. Once the media gets wind of such, the city will move rapidly to bring in the wreckers to forestall a law suit. If such happens, the language will NOT be for its nostalgic past, but ‘How can responsible city fathers allow such a menace to the public to stand for so long?!!’ There will then be a round of denials and finger pointing and a scramble as the politicians leave town on “vacation” or claim that that they never noticed the vacant hulk was standing there (since 1980s). There will then be a loud call for all such “useless” old theatres to be found amd razed and that a commission will be formed to look into the matter forthwith! Any words then from us ‘theatre nuts’ will be sneared at, and sites like this will get messages of outrage as to ‘How could we not alert those responsible as to this danger!’ No, it will not be a ‘peaceful death.’
Dear Mr. Faytis, Thank You for your fine comment. I’m sure everyone here agrees that memories such as yours help bring alive our theatres history — especially when a theatre is almost lost to us. I hope someone finds that disassambled fountain you saw under those stairs and preserves it before the sad day of demolition inevitably comes. Jim Rankin
Being both a Milwaukeean and a lifelong admirer of theatres, I sympathize with the Rhode’s situation. I wish I had funds to help theatres, but I don’t. When, however, I was the Archivist/Historian to Milwaukee’s Pabst Theater in 1990-91, I did gather information and wrote up grant applications and learned of the slow process it is. Funds are even tighter today than then and competition for them even greater, but if you can prove the value of the Rhode to both Kenosha and the state as a whole, then there is a possibility that the effort of approaching them ACCORDING TO THEIR INSTRUCTIONS will pay off down the road. It does help to have landmark status, but you may still sway the judges at the Foundations if you show more zeal than desperation. Look to the Foundations in the directories listed at the site below according to each one’s stated direction of giving. If one’s thrust of giving is social causes, go easy on architectural assets and history, but strong on groups using the theatre and they benefit everyone. If the Foundation will allow you to submit Exhibits along with the formal grant application, then include PHOTOCOPIES (never let originals out of your hands) of all the Letters of Recommendation you can scrounge up. You can send DIFFERENTIATED templates (sample letters) to those you invite to send TO YOU letters of recommendation, but make sure that none of them sound or look like the result of a form letter sent to them. If you can’t get such letters from social groups using the theatre, artists and others who appeared there, and prominent ones, then you will have little likehood of a grant. Consider including photos of people using the Rhode now and in past, or at least good photocopies of them to emphasize the human angle of the architecture, which should also be displayed in photos or artwork. Here is the Directory of Foundations in Wis: View link
Best Wishes, Jim Rankin
Mr. Bruss: I wish you well on your book project, and as a life-long Milwaukeean I can give some insights based upon my 60 years. You will find my major memories here on this site’s page for the recently lost ‘41-Twin’ at: /theaters/2682/
Note there at the top of the page the line of brown type where if you click on WISCONSIN you will be taken to a list of both the theatres and DRIVE-INs that have been listed. Click on each of those and you will have a beginning to your book.
Are you aware of another fellow’s Web site about Wis outdoors? I can’t recall the name or URL of it, but I’m sure that if you Google it with such a search term as “outdoor movies” or “Drive-In Theatres” you will find it as well as other such sites. I assume that you have already gone to such as www.amazon.com to review the several books already out on the subject in a nation wide sense. If you need help locating a title or two, go to www.historictheatres.org and click on their link BOOKSTORE, and when you click on a title you will be taken to the Amazon page for that book, and on the bottom of that page you will find some links to similar titles.
You might want to contact the author of the 1986 title MILWAUKEE MOVIE PALACES, Larry Widen, who has a listing of Outdoors along with data, in his new book to be released next October: SILVER SCREENS. He can be reached via his web site: www.widenonline.com where there may also be a listing of Milw. area Drive-ins.
I hope you find this of some help. Best Wishes, Jim Rankin
Some views of this building appear as postcards in Larry Widen’s recent book “Vintage Milwaukee Postcards” and will also likely appear in his soon-to-be-released book “Silent Screens,” a sequeal to his 1986 “Milwaukee Movie Palaces.”
Why the non-theatrical name “Fern” I was asked, and to that question I can only respond with the speculation that it belonged to one of the female relatives of the men who built it, as an honorific, rather than for any reference to any supposed plethora of potted ferns or palms about the stageless cinema. It must be remembered that living plants require a minimum of about 100 footcandles of light to survive, and windowless theatres would have a great deal less! However, it is possible that a number of artificial plants reflected the name.
The former Comique has been a liquor store for many years and nothing remains to suggest its former life. It is an unremarkable frame building with wooden plank siding. Ironically, another stageless theatre exists now a few doors to its south, the Boulevard, but this recent creation within another storefront is solely a live action venue without provisions to show films.
Upon rereading this page I realize that I never did summarize that ‘press conference’ of Oct. 20th due to health problems then pressing, so I will do so while I can.
About 100 people attended that session in the Avalon’s auditorium including not only Mr. Barczak, but also local politicians and a lot of young married locals with children in tow. Under improvised lighting (tiny electric stars twinkeled in the ceiling but made for insufficient light to see one another, hence the theatre spot lights cast upon the blank screen and the seated audience). Mr. Barczak accepted the plaudits of the guests when he made clear his determination to bring the theatre back to profitable use as well as beauty, and therefore NOT as a movie palace, a single screen form no longer practical today, as he explained. In that vein he admitted that it appears unlikely that the pipe organ will be reinstalled. There will be films of some sort, but he dodged repeated questions as to the nature of either films or performers to come. It was made clear that it must be a multiple use facility in order to survive, hance his determination to use all areas of the building to “make a go of it.” Mention was again made of turning part of the small lobby into seating area for a projected restaurant to be created in the store space adjoining the lobby to the south. He also is looking into making the stage serve multiple purposes, so will probably do away with the huge screen which now is mounted in front of the entire proscenium upon a timber forestage. It was stressed that while there is every intention to restore it cosmetically, major repairs and alterations will have to come first, so any use of the theatre will not be seen at the earliest until early 2008. This conference, which the media mostly did not attend, ended after questions were entertained —including the perenial one about the need for parking (without any firm statements on the matter)— about one hour in a relieved and optomistic mood. Time will tell if his aspirations come to realization.
Congratulations, Ross and company, on this admirable milestone! Your tally now is about equal to that of the Theatre Historical Society (though in somewhat different depth and format) and your patrons can always go to the Society for what cannot be found here; they are at www.historictheatres.org . Due to failing health, my contributions to this site must diminish, but I am confident that a great many others will carry on. I wish many more years of success to C.T.! You have provided a public spirited outlook upon our area of interest that had not heretofore been attained, and the world’s conscience has been raised as to its theatres heritage. Bravo!
Mr. Lamb: You contact individual members directly through their E-mail addresses which are supposed to be listed under CONTACT on their Profile pages which one gets to by clicking on their names in blue at the ends of their Comments. All can add their E-mails by ckicking on ‘Profile’ in the upper right corner of any page, once one has signed on (which is automatic after one Registers —if one has ‘cookies’ turned on, on one’s computer.) One can put his E-mail directly into a Comment, but the CONTACT provision on a member’s Profile page is designed to thwart the automated ‘robots’ (computers) which nightly scan the Web sites looking for new E-mails to “harvest” so as to add them to spam lists. Some members don’t want to be contacted at all, so they do not leave any CONTACT data, while others will give mailing address and phone numbers as well. So, let’s all at least list our E-mails in the CONTACT field so that others can contact us.
Photos of the demolition and at least one of the grocery store years do exist at the Theatre Historical Soc. outside of Chicago www.historictheatres.org
Howard Haas is very right that most cities did indeed have movie palaces suitable to being converted to opera houses, but most of them were as egocentric as they were flush with the “Great Society” dollars of pres. Johnson’s revenue sharing of the 1960s, so their priorities were upon the potential campaign slogan of such as ‘Look what I built for our city during my last term!!’ (as mayor, county Exec., or the like.) Since then, the ethos has changed from Urban Renewal to Historic Preservation, but now the money is not there; all governments are deeply in debt and spending on the arts has all but vanished. Now the retired politicos of the ‘60s and later saunter by the PACs with the plaques with their names on them and smugly say “See what I left for everyone!” Yes, they often left jerry-built eyesores that are sometimes still being paid for, but they couldn’t have left as large a plaque if it had been merely a converted movie palace built by someone else. And how else would they have been able to pay back all their campaign contributors with construction jobs unless they built from scratch? Look at the sad story of the FOX in San Francisco as the case study it is of political machanitions that brought down possibly the best candidate for an opera house that ever existed.
Back then they called it Urban Renewal and demolished huge swaths of buildings in many cities, supposedly for the public good after which it seems contractors and others to whom the politicians owed favors in exchange for campaign contributions, somehow got the najority of the rehab contracts. Nowadays, there is no real need to claim Urban Renewal, since the Supreme Court has just reinterpreted the Eminent Domain clause of the Constitution to mean that any government can take anything for what the politicos define as “Higher Use.” I wonder for how long our remaining grand old theatres occupying prime real estate wanted by ‘contributors’ will be able to stand against this new legalized rape of cities? Go and take your photos now, for you know not what tommorrow brings!
Emily: In 1976 the Theatre Historical Society published their Annual: “The Times Square Paramount” by the late Michael Miller and it contained not only many photos of the theatre, but also Inventory photos of the furnishings, no doubt including mirrors. Unfortunately, it is out of print, but any library which got their MARQUEE magazine back then also got that Annual. Go to a library and ask them to check the Union List of Serials for the nearest library with it. Of course, you can always go to their Archive outside of Chicago and view it there, as well as dozens of images that have not been published. View the links on their site such as ‘Archive’ at: www.historictheatres.org
Emily: In 1976 the Theatre Historical Society published their Annual: “The Times Square Paramount” by the late Michael Miller and it contained not only many photos of the theatre, but also Inventory photos of the furnishings, no doubt including mirrors. Unfortunately, it is out of print, but any library which got their MARQUEE magazine back then also got that Annual. Go to a library and ask them to check the Union List of Serials for the nearest library with it. Of course, you can always go to their Archive outside of Chicago and view it there, as well as dozens of images that have not been published. View the links on their site such as ‘Archive’ at: www.historictheatres.org
Larry Widen, author of the 1986 book MILW. MOVIE PALACES, told me that he can’t find the last owner of record whose tax bill address was bogus! So, I guess the city owns the place in reality, but probably awaits a court action to seize it. Of course, they don’t want to do that since then they will be responsible for the many thousands for demolition —but which they will be responsible for eventually anyway. Often cities wait in “benign neglect” for some part of the building to collapse into public view as a hazard before they reluctantly pay for demolition (especially when no one is likely to buy the cleared land!) We can but wait, unless someone knows someone in city government, since Tim is right: even a cop doesn’t have the right to enter private property without Warrent or Probable Cause.
Kings, you’ve just got that button on your mouse fixed. One of the first signs of its impending doom is multiple ‘clicks’ which result in multiple posts such as above, in case you were wondering.
I stand corrected as to the relative seating capacity and proximity to the “huge” former ALBEMARLE. I stand by my observations, but as Bob so well puts it: “It ain’t easy folks.”
The city owns the property, so until such time as they want to move on the matter, forming a not-for-profit would serve little purpose. At its most noble vision, a politician, such as the borough president, works to implement what his constitutents want, but in reality the works of politicians are not so noble. It will require of those wishing to save the KINGS, someone on the political ‘inside’ who can find out the real attitude of the politicos, contrary to whatever they may be saying ‘for public consumption’ as the saying goes.
Obviously, the theatre is not high on the politicos' list of problems, especially since (unlike Disney and the NEW AMSTERDAM) there does not appear to be any big money in the background. Yes, folks, the KINGS will never return to showing movies, so you have to interest a developer with BIG BUCKS or DEEP, DEEP POCKETS to become interested in order for there to be any realistic hope of renewal. That athlete who wanted to subdivide the place realized that even his pockets were not deep enough to withstand the tens of millions this job would require before a penny is received as income. In this country, without an assured high return on investment, 99.9% of would-be investors will back off. Disney did it for image in Manhattan, not the blue collar suburb that Brooklyn is perceived to be. What Brooklyn-based entity is willing to take the risk here in their own backyard? Even the tax-free Jehovah’s Witnesses with their HQ in Brooklyn did not take on the KINGS (assuming the borough would have let them). They had to go to Jersey City to the former STANLEY (which is about 2000 seats smaller than the KINGS). Does this say something about Brooklyn politics? Are other entities scared off of getting involved with the politicians there? If so, and given the ownership, we could all be wasting our time on a noble, but lost cause. Maybe those in the area should turn their efforts toward the former BROOKLYN PARAMOUNT, and try to encourage LIU to restore it as a showcase of some sort, though I don’t know how they would turn a profit on it.
Lest anyone misconstrue my words above, I will append this ending: So let it be that concerned citizens will band together to never let such an end occur, but to instead to restore this once theatrical jewel.
Sad to say, it would not be a “peaceful death.” Derelect buildings typically stand until some part of them falls onto a public way or neighboring property and someone complains or is injured. Once the media gets wind of such, the city will move rapidly to bring in the wreckers to forestall a law suit. If such happens, the language will NOT be for its nostalgic past, but ‘How can responsible city fathers allow such a menace to the public to stand for so long?!!’ There will then be a round of denials and finger pointing and a scramble as the politicians leave town on “vacation” or claim that that they never noticed the vacant hulk was standing there (since 1980s). There will then be a loud call for all such “useless” old theatres to be found amd razed and that a commission will be formed to look into the matter forthwith! Any words then from us ‘theatre nuts’ will be sneared at, and sites like this will get messages of outrage as to ‘How could we not alert those responsible as to this danger!’ No, it will not be a ‘peaceful death.’
Dear Mr. Faytis, Thank You for your fine comment. I’m sure everyone here agrees that memories such as yours help bring alive our theatres history — especially when a theatre is almost lost to us. I hope someone finds that disassambled fountain you saw under those stairs and preserves it before the sad day of demolition inevitably comes. Jim Rankin
Being both a Milwaukeean and a lifelong admirer of theatres, I sympathize with the Rhode’s situation. I wish I had funds to help theatres, but I don’t. When, however, I was the Archivist/Historian to Milwaukee’s Pabst Theater in 1990-91, I did gather information and wrote up grant applications and learned of the slow process it is. Funds are even tighter today than then and competition for them even greater, but if you can prove the value of the Rhode to both Kenosha and the state as a whole, then there is a possibility that the effort of approaching them ACCORDING TO THEIR INSTRUCTIONS will pay off down the road. It does help to have landmark status, but you may still sway the judges at the Foundations if you show more zeal than desperation. Look to the Foundations in the directories listed at the site below according to each one’s stated direction of giving. If one’s thrust of giving is social causes, go easy on architectural assets and history, but strong on groups using the theatre and they benefit everyone. If the Foundation will allow you to submit Exhibits along with the formal grant application, then include PHOTOCOPIES (never let originals out of your hands) of all the Letters of Recommendation you can scrounge up. You can send DIFFERENTIATED templates (sample letters) to those you invite to send TO YOU letters of recommendation, but make sure that none of them sound or look like the result of a form letter sent to them. If you can’t get such letters from social groups using the theatre, artists and others who appeared there, and prominent ones, then you will have little likehood of a grant. Consider including photos of people using the Rhode now and in past, or at least good photocopies of them to emphasize the human angle of the architecture, which should also be displayed in photos or artwork. Here is the Directory of Foundations in Wis: View link
Best Wishes, Jim Rankin
Mr. Bruss: I wish you well on your book project, and as a life-long Milwaukeean I can give some insights based upon my 60 years. You will find my major memories here on this site’s page for the recently lost ‘41-Twin’ at: /theaters/2682/
Note there at the top of the page the line of brown type where if you click on WISCONSIN you will be taken to a list of both the theatres and DRIVE-INs that have been listed. Click on each of those and you will have a beginning to your book.
Are you aware of another fellow’s Web site about Wis outdoors? I can’t recall the name or URL of it, but I’m sure that if you Google it with such a search term as “outdoor movies” or “Drive-In Theatres” you will find it as well as other such sites. I assume that you have already gone to such as www.amazon.com to review the several books already out on the subject in a nation wide sense. If you need help locating a title or two, go to www.historictheatres.org and click on their link BOOKSTORE, and when you click on a title you will be taken to the Amazon page for that book, and on the bottom of that page you will find some links to similar titles.
You might want to contact the author of the 1986 title MILWAUKEE MOVIE PALACES, Larry Widen, who has a listing of Outdoors along with data, in his new book to be released next October: SILVER SCREENS. He can be reached via his web site: www.widenonline.com where there may also be a listing of Milw. area Drive-ins.
I hope you find this of some help. Best Wishes, Jim Rankin
Please let us know if you learn anything more about this cinema.
Please let us know if you learn anything more about this cinema.
Some views of this building appear as postcards in Larry Widen’s recent book “Vintage Milwaukee Postcards” and will also likely appear in his soon-to-be-released book “Silent Screens,” a sequeal to his 1986 “Milwaukee Movie Palaces.”
Please let us know if you learn more about this cinema.
Please let us know if you learn more about this cinema.
Why the non-theatrical name “Fern” I was asked, and to that question I can only respond with the speculation that it belonged to one of the female relatives of the men who built it, as an honorific, rather than for any reference to any supposed plethora of potted ferns or palms about the stageless cinema. It must be remembered that living plants require a minimum of about 100 footcandles of light to survive, and windowless theatres would have a great deal less! However, it is possible that a number of artificial plants reflected the name.
The former Comique has been a liquor store for many years and nothing remains to suggest its former life. It is an unremarkable frame building with wooden plank siding. Ironically, another stageless theatre exists now a few doors to its south, the Boulevard, but this recent creation within another storefront is solely a live action venue without provisions to show films.
Upon rereading this page I realize that I never did summarize that ‘press conference’ of Oct. 20th due to health problems then pressing, so I will do so while I can.
About 100 people attended that session in the Avalon’s auditorium including not only Mr. Barczak, but also local politicians and a lot of young married locals with children in tow. Under improvised lighting (tiny electric stars twinkeled in the ceiling but made for insufficient light to see one another, hence the theatre spot lights cast upon the blank screen and the seated audience). Mr. Barczak accepted the plaudits of the guests when he made clear his determination to bring the theatre back to profitable use as well as beauty, and therefore NOT as a movie palace, a single screen form no longer practical today, as he explained. In that vein he admitted that it appears unlikely that the pipe organ will be reinstalled. There will be films of some sort, but he dodged repeated questions as to the nature of either films or performers to come. It was made clear that it must be a multiple use facility in order to survive, hance his determination to use all areas of the building to “make a go of it.” Mention was again made of turning part of the small lobby into seating area for a projected restaurant to be created in the store space adjoining the lobby to the south. He also is looking into making the stage serve multiple purposes, so will probably do away with the huge screen which now is mounted in front of the entire proscenium upon a timber forestage. It was stressed that while there is every intention to restore it cosmetically, major repairs and alterations will have to come first, so any use of the theatre will not be seen at the earliest until early 2008. This conference, which the media mostly did not attend, ended after questions were entertained —including the perenial one about the need for parking (without any firm statements on the matter)— about one hour in a relieved and optomistic mood. Time will tell if his aspirations come to realization.
Congratulations, Ross and company, on this admirable milestone! Your tally now is about equal to that of the Theatre Historical Society (though in somewhat different depth and format) and your patrons can always go to the Society for what cannot be found here; they are at www.historictheatres.org . Due to failing health, my contributions to this site must diminish, but I am confident that a great many others will carry on. I wish many more years of success to C.T.! You have provided a public spirited outlook upon our area of interest that had not heretofore been attained, and the world’s conscience has been raised as to its theatres heritage. Bravo!
Mr. Lamb: You contact individual members directly through their E-mail addresses which are supposed to be listed under CONTACT on their Profile pages which one gets to by clicking on their names in blue at the ends of their Comments. All can add their E-mails by ckicking on ‘Profile’ in the upper right corner of any page, once one has signed on (which is automatic after one Registers —if one has ‘cookies’ turned on, on one’s computer.) One can put his E-mail directly into a Comment, but the CONTACT provision on a member’s Profile page is designed to thwart the automated ‘robots’ (computers) which nightly scan the Web sites looking for new E-mails to “harvest” so as to add them to spam lists. Some members don’t want to be contacted at all, so they do not leave any CONTACT data, while others will give mailing address and phone numbers as well. So, let’s all at least list our E-mails in the CONTACT field so that others can contact us.
Photos of the demolition and at least one of the grocery store years do exist at the Theatre Historical Soc. outside of Chicago www.historictheatres.org
Howard Haas is very right that most cities did indeed have movie palaces suitable to being converted to opera houses, but most of them were as egocentric as they were flush with the “Great Society” dollars of pres. Johnson’s revenue sharing of the 1960s, so their priorities were upon the potential campaign slogan of such as ‘Look what I built for our city during my last term!!’ (as mayor, county Exec., or the like.) Since then, the ethos has changed from Urban Renewal to Historic Preservation, but now the money is not there; all governments are deeply in debt and spending on the arts has all but vanished. Now the retired politicos of the ‘60s and later saunter by the PACs with the plaques with their names on them and smugly say “See what I left for everyone!” Yes, they often left jerry-built eyesores that are sometimes still being paid for, but they couldn’t have left as large a plaque if it had been merely a converted movie palace built by someone else. And how else would they have been able to pay back all their campaign contributors with construction jobs unless they built from scratch? Look at the sad story of the FOX in San Francisco as the case study it is of political machanitions that brought down possibly the best candidate for an opera house that ever existed.
Back then they called it Urban Renewal and demolished huge swaths of buildings in many cities, supposedly for the public good after which it seems contractors and others to whom the politicians owed favors in exchange for campaign contributions, somehow got the najority of the rehab contracts. Nowadays, there is no real need to claim Urban Renewal, since the Supreme Court has just reinterpreted the Eminent Domain clause of the Constitution to mean that any government can take anything for what the politicos define as “Higher Use.” I wonder for how long our remaining grand old theatres occupying prime real estate wanted by ‘contributors’ will be able to stand against this new legalized rape of cities? Go and take your photos now, for you know not what tommorrow brings!
Emily: In 1976 the Theatre Historical Society published their Annual: “The Times Square Paramount” by the late Michael Miller and it contained not only many photos of the theatre, but also Inventory photos of the furnishings, no doubt including mirrors. Unfortunately, it is out of print, but any library which got their MARQUEE magazine back then also got that Annual. Go to a library and ask them to check the Union List of Serials for the nearest library with it. Of course, you can always go to their Archive outside of Chicago and view it there, as well as dozens of images that have not been published. View the links on their site such as ‘Archive’ at: www.historictheatres.org
Emily: In 1976 the Theatre Historical Society published their Annual: “The Times Square Paramount” by the late Michael Miller and it contained not only many photos of the theatre, but also Inventory photos of the furnishings, no doubt including mirrors. Unfortunately, it is out of print, but any library which got their MARQUEE magazine back then also got that Annual. Go to a library and ask them to check the Union List of Serials for the nearest library with it. Of course, you can always go to their Archive outside of Chicago and view it there, as well as dozens of images that have not been published. View the links on their site such as ‘Archive’ at: www.historictheatres.org
Oops hit the ‘Remove from Email Notification’ link; this should correct that.
Larry Widen, author of the 1986 book MILW. MOVIE PALACES, told me that he can’t find the last owner of record whose tax bill address was bogus! So, I guess the city owns the place in reality, but probably awaits a court action to seize it. Of course, they don’t want to do that since then they will be responsible for the many thousands for demolition —but which they will be responsible for eventually anyway. Often cities wait in “benign neglect” for some part of the building to collapse into public view as a hazard before they reluctantly pay for demolition (especially when no one is likely to buy the cleared land!) We can but wait, unless someone knows someone in city government, since Tim is right: even a cop doesn’t have the right to enter private property without Warrent or Probable Cause.