Camera 12 Cinemas

201 S. Second Street,
San Jose, CA 95113

Unfavorite 2 people favorited this theater

Camera 12 Cinemas

Viewing: Photo | Street View

The Pavilion Theatre 8 was intended to boost revenue in downtown San Jose. It was built using funds from the redevelopment agency in the mid-1990’s. The theater was not as successful as anticipated.

After six months of operation, the United Artists chain announced they wanted to vacate the property. Three years later, with no warning, UA packed up all the equipment (in the middle of the night) and closed the theater.

A May 2002 article in the San Jose Mercury news indicated that San Jose based Cinelux Theatres was interested in re-opening the theater.

It was reopened as Camera 12 Cinemas in summer 2004.

Contributed by Mike Croaro

Recent comments (view all 7 comments)

Dejael
Dejael on March 2, 2003 at 7:46 pm

This fine example of steel and glass ultramodern hi-tech design is also known as the United Artists Theater complex, at Paseo de San Antonio in downtown San Jose at the VTA Light Rail stop by Starbuck’s coffee. Successful it was as architecture, but not as a commercial space, for some unknown reason (which many natives of San Jose believe was bad management) and now it sits empty and neglected, a sign of all that’s wrong with the City of San Jose’s downtown redevelopment plans. A similar theater in Burbank, for instance, does a thriving business. We hope it will be reoccupied as a multiplex theater by a major chain instead of being remodeled into something else, like a store.

Eric
Eric on March 17, 2004 at 1:52 pm

Construction has just begun on the tranformation of the United Artists Pavilion into the CAMERA 12 CINEMAS, opening in May 2004. The Camera One and Camera Three theatres will close when the 12 opens.

scottfavareille
scottfavareille on March 17, 2004 at 2:40 pm

I find that last comment interesting, considering that Camera’s original intensions was to move into the Pavilion, but that deal had fallen through at that time(2002). Camera was then focusing on expanding the Camera 3 space into the Kinko’s next door to it(and adding two additional screens). The Camera One was to shut down in either event.

Camera has done a very good job with turning a long shuttered UA theater (the Pruneyard 3 in Campbell) into the Camera 7. I would love to see this suceed.

DKelley
DKelley on May 30, 2004 at 2:14 am

This is a truly stupid idea! Camera Cinemas is adding 12 screens to an already completely super-saturated marketplace. This theatre will face over 150 screens in direct competition within a 10 miles radius. Additionally, Camera lacks the finances to make this a truly state of the art theatre. Case in point is their Dolby Digital sound system plan—most “state of the art” cinemas these days spend the extra money for THX certification to tout that comment. I’m sure this Cinema will be very modern in comparison to its dumpy dirty Camera 3 just across the street, but a brand new Daewoo Hatchback still isn’t a Mercedes. This Daewoo will charge Mercedes prices, but not provide the amenties of AMC or Century, or the friendly feel of CineLux. Boo!

scottfavareille
scottfavareille on June 18, 2004 at 8:37 am

This re-opens today as the Camera 12. Most of the grand opening features are first-run Hollywood product, one of the screens is showing arthouse product.

The Camera One is now closed. The Camera 3 is still open for the time being.

CSWalczak
CSWalczak on March 2, 2011 at 9:42 pm

This theater is again in severe financial straits, but the City of San Jose is trying to extend it a lifeline: View link

Nobody
Nobody on April 9, 2011 at 10:58 pm

[quote]
This theater is again in severe financial straits, but the City of San Jose is trying to extend it a lifeline: View link
[/quote]

I’m posting a little over a month after the above post. Does anyone happen to know whether the city was able to extend the lifeline mentioned?

Speaking as a taxpayer, I’m conflicted; I like the Camera Cinemas guys. OTOH, the City of San Jose’s Redevelopment Agency (RDA) contributed $4.6 million to the $11 million theater project when the UA tried to make a go of it. Then, when the Camera Cinemas took over, the RDA loaned -them- another $3.2 million, making a total of $7.8 million in taxpayer funds poured into a theater that, according to DKelley’s post above, “face[s] over 150 screens in direct competition within a 10 miles radius.”

I have to ask: am I missing something here? Or is the idea of pouring more taxpayer funds into a theater that’s been a money-losing proposition for more than a decade under two different owners as bad as it appears?

I also couldn’t help but notice that the Mercury News article made no mention of any RDA plans to perform a cost/benefit analysis so that the city has at least a vague idea of how much cash Camera 12 brings into the surrounding businesses. In other words: the RDA is simply -guessing- that Camera 12 serves as an “anchor” for the businesses in the area, but are either unable or unwilling to express the impact that Camera 12 has in terms of a dollar amount.

I know this is going to sound unkind, but: if the RDA is unable to quantify the financial impact that a business has, then how do they have any way of knowing what they are talking about? Ask yourself: wouldn’t a bank want to know this kind of information before extending -another- loan to someone who can’t pay back their original loan or make their rent?

This from a city that is running “a second consecutive budget deficit of more than $100 million.” Maybe it’s just me, but that sure doesn’t sound like a city that can afford to keep making poor financial decisions. ¬_¬

You must login before making a comment.

New Comment

Subscribe Want to be emailed when a new comment is posted about this theater?
Just login to your account and subscribe to this theater