Showing 2,001 - 2,025 of 2,236 comments
Address was 680 Lee. The former lobby is still intact. Also interesting to note that the current facade is not the original lobby; when built around 1915 it had a plainer, single story storefront. I believe the street was widened in the 1920s necessitating a new lobby, or it may have merely been a matter of modernization. The house was very long and narrow.
“We are excited to bring this antique chandelier from the Capitol to the nationï¿½s capitol and its celebrated Uptown Theatre, which is such a historic and well-loved landmark for the area”
So excited they forgot how to spell capital?
I think Bruce must be mistaken about the order of names- the photographs linked to on this entry prove that it opened as the Columbia (during construction, during for example), and was later the Adelphi (as in this 1927 view), before being renamed the Clark.
The 1911 Loop Street Address Renumeration Guide shows the address of the theatre entrance to be 11 N Clark and the hotel 15 N Clark. It’s not unusual for a theatre to take on the address of the building its part of, for example, the listed address for the Shubert/Majestic isn’t really accurate, so that’s likely what happened here.
I’d like to thank Bruce for all his important contributions to chicago film exhibition over the years. Although i’m too young to have experienced them, I can appreciate that he played quite an important role.
I think you’re right- from what I can tell looking at the entries, there appear to be three theaters here ultimately called “World”– theCalifornia (1909)/Liberty (1911)/Allies (~1918)/Crescent (~1922)/Liberty (1926)/World (~1949-1953), the Palace/Royal Palace/Royal/Verdi/World(1954-1982), and the 1983-1990s World, this entry. The comments and description from this should probably be moved to the Palace entry, the California needs an address, and this entry should probably be clarified that it refers to the World in the office building
Glad to help! I figured the time period was rather far off, but so it goes. Now, another question I had about the Terminal was this. What was the story with the original Terminal, which still stands? This site lists the Metro as 3306 W Lawrence, one door down from the shown address for the original Terminal. Jazz Age Chicago shows both at 3308. However, the former theatre entrance lies in the middle of a number of stores built with it, correct? So they couldn’t be next to each other. Jim Rankin, in other posts on this site about ‘backwards theatres’ includes an entry, “5) The METROPOLITAN, 3308 W. Lawrence, Chicago, IL (later TERMINAL, METRO)” So, are these in fact the same theatre? I would assume it would have reverted to the Metro name upon opening of the new Terminal. On the other hand, Terminal I is shown as a 1500 seat vaudeville/movie venue on Jazz Age and Metro shown as a 1000 seat backwards venue here, so these are clearly not compatible descriptions… anyone know what the story is?
The Imperial is visible in this photo documenting the 1968 riots. The 4 Star (Wilson) is visible in the distance. Ironically, the signboard reads “Come in, relax, and see a movie in comfort”
In comparing these two photos, I notice that the starburst parts of the marquee are not actually present in the earlier picture. They must be retrofit. Interesting, the older photo looks more deco.
Here is a 1953 photo of the then-bustling Six Corners, with the Portage’s vertical sign faintly visible in the background.
Here is a circa 1929 Photo of Lawrence avenue facing west towards the second Terminal, as well as the Metro across the street.
Here is one from 1919
View link Here is a circa 1930 view of the exterior, looking almost the same as it does now. The updated URL to Bryan’s 1950s postcard view is View link
View link Here is another 1960 view of the interior.
The book “Chicago’s Loop” claims that the Castle theatre on State was the first newsreel theatre in chicago, beginning in 1932
Over the weekend some of the ugly modern facade was stripped off of the attached Riviera Office Building, which stands vacant. Unfortunately the masonry looks to be in pretty poor shape, but perhaps restoration of the facade (maybe the office building will be condo-ized?) and theater as a whole will follow? One can only hope!
Probably a good chunk of SAIC students too
I don’t see how it could be. You can kind of see where the old elements were attached. But it doesn’t appear to be a false front- look in the upper left corner. I think it’s all brick, with the ornament literally shorn off. Shameful.
http://www.goodman-theatre.org/construction_1.asp is the new link to that page
A comparison of the building’s original facade, as the studebaker building, and after its remodeling as the fine arts building can be seen at http://www.ci.chi.il.us/Landmarks/F/FineArts2.html
The Historic American Buildings report on the Granada indicates that this was one of the first theatres designed by Alexander L. Levy.
Actually the link was working when I checked it, which was after ron posted his comment. I think it just takes a minute to load.
Here is Marina City’s architect, Bertand Goldberg, speaking about the planned theatre:
“Here is it necessary to think of the relationship to human size. For this relationship, we have used the Marina City theatre. The central form of the theatre and the sculptural concrete of the theatre has a degree of intimacy which none of the other structures at Marina City has. The theatre, itself, we call the Marina City Center, because it is at this point that people will disembark, and it is from this point that people may reach any other portion of the Marina City under cover with automatic forms of transportation – the escalator, and the elevator.
The theatre building is the building which will be seen in terms of greatest intimacy by the approaching pedestrian or passenger. This is a building which in its scale of forms we have retained personal intimacy and suggestion of masculinity. We hope that there is a physical quality to the design of the theatre, which will relate the onlooker to the composition as a whole.
The next slide shows the curious relationship of the structure of the theatre tot he physical structure of an arm. Where the exterior concrete frame of the theatre touches the ground, we have the elbow. At the extreme cantilevered reaching end, we have the hand. And high up, we have the shoulder. The roof is slung by means of catenary cables between the hand and the shoulder. The seats, the gallery, is supported along the concrete arm itself.
We have used many devices to relate the theatre form to the pedestrian. We have mentioned the masculinity of the form, we have mentioned the physical quality of the form. A third relationship is in the slope of the theatre overhang. This is identical to the slope of the automobile ramp, and will relate these complex buildings one to the other.
The next slide shows the rear of the theatre which will be the Dearborn Street frontage. Here you may see the shoulder muscles which are holding the shoulder down to the ground and which keep the structure from tipping over around its elbow. “
Ground-breaking on the new sidewalk studio in the former lobby space began today:
click here and and here
Demolition began today.
Sure, i’ll do that as soon as I get home. i’d appreciate it if you emailed me (click on my name) because any link I post will expire. I think the theatre had a tin ceiling as well, from what I was seeing in the rubble. When I was there, those tin wainscots were covered partially by some cheap pine. It’s really too bad it was torn down, it looked like it would’ve made a nice replacement for the Bottom Lounge, although there’s no telling what kind of shape it was in.
Well, I somehow doubt the foundation will be building the condos themselves. It would require a PRIVATE condo developer to build condos for PRIVATE citizens and owned by a PRIVATE landlord, and additionally need PRIVATE businesses to make PRIVATE investments in their PRIVATE ventures to operate their PRIVATE retail.
Seriously, concerned taxpayer, you’re wasting your time here. Maybe you don’t have an ulterior motive. Maybe you are just concerned with not paying a cent more on your taxes, damn the consequences. Maybe your rhetoric can convince some people to support you and your cause, but the people here have seen enough destruction and redevelopment that we can spot your fallacies a mile away.
Also, this article in the satirical paper “The Onion” reminded me of you. Perhaps you’ll enjoy it. View link