Jim – you consider the Buffalo Theatre to be a near duplicate of the Rialto Square? You lost me on that one. Don’t they have completely different lobby designs? Is it the auditoriums you consider similar? Even those look pretty different to me. I agree with NEO that the auditoriums of the Rialto Square and the Michigan in Detroit are similar. The Buffalo and Rialto Square are both great theatres, but I don’t see a lot of similarities between them. Just my opinion.
The site the theatre sat on is still vacant. I drove by it a couple of years ago after visiting the Science and Industry museum and don’t recall seeing anything there. In case you’re not familiar with the area, it is a very bad neighborhood.
No, the postcard view I have is more detailed than the drawing contained in the newsletter. And it shows the theatre as it actually was in the 1920s. It’s a really beautiful picture. However, the perspective of the two is similar. I’d be happy to email you a scan of it if you’re interested.
The interior photos look to me like they are of the Paramount in Aurora, Illinois. I’ve never heard of a twin of that in Boston. Something is fishy there.
I saw a couple of shows there in the mid 1960s. They weren’t very well attended, which explains, I suppose, why the theatre closed in 1967. But the place had a wonderful feel to it, especially for being built in the stream-lined era. I wish it were still open.
This was a truly great movie palace, one of the best. Maybe THE best of its size. I would love to see some color pictures of the interior. It’s heart-breaking to think of it being demolished.
Until this article I wasn’t aware of any debate regarding the value of graffiti. It’s wrong simply because it’s vandalism. It violates one’s personal property. Nothing to debate there. The background of the perpetrators and the fact that it might have value to them is of no consequence. Why must everything be upside-down these days?
Jim, I think it just shows that the movie palace as we know it today evolved, and didn’t really start with a particular theatre. Every theatre you could possibly claim to be the first palace could be traced to something before it. That’s why I would lean toward the Ringling as being the first, because, although it’s on a smaller scale, it most resembles what we think of today as a movie palace, and, at the time, was the most radical departure in movie presentation (at least that I know of). The Capitol in New York had many similar antecedents, and I don’t see it as ground breaking, though it was certainly beautiful and ornate.
By the way, I do indeed admire the Coronado. You and I traded comments on the Coronado page on this site. I grew up going to the Coronado, and I think it’s as magical a place as any I’ve been in. Especially during it’s movie-showing years. It doesn’t have quite the same feel anymore, but it is still gorgeous.
Jim – using the Theatre Historical Society’s definition of movie palace that you presented, I would think that the Riveria in Chicago(and perhaps others) would be ahead of the Capitol in New York. As you probably know, the Riviera opened in 1918, and had over 2000 seats, and showed movies from the get-go. Chicago’s Central Park Theatre might also qualify, though I’m not sure about its stage capabilities. Certainly the Riviera had a workable stage. So I don’t believe New York’s Capitol to be the first movie palace. Not if the minimuim seating requirement is 1000.
I won’t argue with you over the proper use of tax dollars, but I disagree that a restored movie palace will only benefit an exclusive few. Successful theatres tend to enhance downtown areas. Just look at the impact that the Chicago, Oriental, and Palace theatres have had for downtown Chicago. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of examples of this across America. But I do generally agree that governments shouldn’t be in the theatre business.
I believe this theatre closed prior to the 1970s. I grew up in Rockford in the 1960s and don’t recall ever hearing of it. There were a number of downtown area theatres still going then, but not the Capitol.
Bruce, your example of the Fox-Oakland is on target. The show starts on the sidewalk, as they say. That project brought a lot of notoriety to the Fox-Oakland, so obviously the marquee means something. I wonder if a similar effort to the Loew’s Kings Theatre in Brooklyn would spur interest in that theatre? Or the Uptown in Chicago? Did you really convince Disney to put a new sign on the El Capitan? You must be a persuasive speaker! Maybe you should talk to the Borough of Brooklyn about the Kings. Seriously, maybe that would work there. If the City is trying to sell the place, maybe they should spend a couple of hundred thousand and do a marquee and sign.
Jim, I don’t dispute your argument about the large costs associated with signage. I just thought that if it was maybe a foot wider and 5 or 6 feet taller (or something on that order), it would look a whole lot better. I certainly wouldn’t expect them to have re-produced the original, or equal the size of the one they took down during the renovation (which was huge). There isn’t even a need for a really large sign since there is no competition among theaters downtown any more. However, the one there now looks like a dwarf. It’s conspicuous by its smallness. I mean, the sign should conjure up at least a little magic. But it’s a small black mark on an otherwise successful renovation project. A project for which the City of Rockford is both grateful and fortunate.
Bruce, I think the only flaw with this theatre is the vertical. During the recent renovation the very large vertical that had been there since the 1950s (or so) was removed and replaced with a more vintage design. Unfortunately, it is somewhat under-scaled for the theatre. Maybe puny is a better description, though it is similar in style to the original 1927 design. The rest of the exterior renovation work was superb, as what was a deteriorating facade now looks great.
I remember that, even as young children, my friends and I would talk about how neat the Coronado was. You know it’s impressive if 7 or 8 year old kids notice it. It was my experiences in this theatre that caused me, as an adult, to develop a more intense interest in movie palaces. In 1985 I just happened to stumble across a book in the NIU library in Dekalb, IL called “American Picture Palaces” by David Naylor. And much to my amazement, the Coronado was briefly discussed. My childhood theatre was featured in a book! That book, along with my memories of the Coronado, flipped a switch in my brain. From that time forward, I’ve been a movie palace nut.
The Midway was a very popular theatre throughout the 1960s and 1970s when I attended shows there. I remember Jaws and Superman being particularly well-attended shows. I doubt seriously that the auditorium seated 2000, since there is no balcony (there might be a small loge area – can’t remember for sure). But it was definitely a large single-floor theatre. My understanding is that it seated about 1000. There was a fire in the 1970s that gutted the lobby. It was rebuilt, but not to its original design. The lobby looks like something from a crummy mall cinema, whereas the auditorim is still in its relatively original condition. The facade is even more imposing than it appears in the photo. By the way, the theatre opened in 1918.
I attended many movies here during the 1960s and 1970s. It continued to be a first run theatre into the early 1980s. All during this time it remained in beautiful condition. The management of this theatre made sure you knew you were someplace special when you came here. It was quite dramatic when they would open and close the curtain before and after each movie showing. It was first class all the way. I remember ushers in full dress uniform still patroling the auditorium and lobby as late as the mid 1970s. The auditorium was in such fine condition at the time of its restoration in 2001, that no painting, save for a few touch-ups, was needed. Just a cleaning was done.
The plasterwork in the Coronado is magnificent, and would rival the plasterwork in Eberson’s best theatres. Supposedly, the same firm that did the plasterwork for the Roxy in New York did the Coronado’s. I have not seen a finer theatre of its size. It is certainly one of the most beautiful atmospherics remaining in America.
Why is Park Ridge trying to tell a private enterprise how to run its business? But then, Park Ridge has a history of infringing on personal property rights. It’s a very facist government there. The city’s mentality is that it owns your house or business. They even have an “Appearance Commission.” How enlightened they are.
wheelieman – though they aren’t movie houses anymore, there are RKO Palaces in both Columbus and Cleveland, OH, and both are still operating.
Jim – you consider the Buffalo Theatre to be a near duplicate of the Rialto Square? You lost me on that one. Don’t they have completely different lobby designs? Is it the auditoriums you consider similar? Even those look pretty different to me. I agree with NEO that the auditoriums of the Rialto Square and the Michigan in Detroit are similar. The Buffalo and Rialto Square are both great theatres, but I don’t see a lot of similarities between them. Just my opinion.
The site the theatre sat on is still vacant. I drove by it a couple of years ago after visiting the Science and Industry museum and don’t recall seeing anything there. In case you’re not familiar with the area, it is a very bad neighborhood.
TC:
No, the postcard view I have is more detailed than the drawing contained in the newsletter. And it shows the theatre as it actually was in the 1920s. It’s a really beautiful picture. However, the perspective of the two is similar. I’d be happy to email you a scan of it if you’re interested.
I have a very interesting color postcard view of the Lansdale from the 1920s. When we can add pictures I will post it.
Ron:
The interior photos look to me like they are of the Paramount in Aurora, Illinois. I’ve never heard of a twin of that in Boston. Something is fishy there.
I saw a couple of shows there in the mid 1960s. They weren’t very well attended, which explains, I suppose, why the theatre closed in 1967. But the place had a wonderful feel to it, especially for being built in the stream-lined era. I wish it were still open.
This was a truly great movie palace, one of the best. Maybe THE best of its size. I would love to see some color pictures of the interior. It’s heart-breaking to think of it being demolished.
Until this article I wasn’t aware of any debate regarding the value of graffiti. It’s wrong simply because it’s vandalism. It violates one’s personal property. Nothing to debate there. The background of the perpetrators and the fact that it might have value to them is of no consequence. Why must everything be upside-down these days?
Jim, I think it just shows that the movie palace as we know it today evolved, and didn’t really start with a particular theatre. Every theatre you could possibly claim to be the first palace could be traced to something before it. That’s why I would lean toward the Ringling as being the first, because, although it’s on a smaller scale, it most resembles what we think of today as a movie palace, and, at the time, was the most radical departure in movie presentation (at least that I know of). The Capitol in New York had many similar antecedents, and I don’t see it as ground breaking, though it was certainly beautiful and ornate.
By the way, I do indeed admire the Coronado. You and I traded comments on the Coronado page on this site. I grew up going to the Coronado, and I think it’s as magical a place as any I’ve been in. Especially during it’s movie-showing years. It doesn’t have quite the same feel anymore, but it is still gorgeous.
Jim – using the Theatre Historical Society’s definition of movie palace that you presented, I would think that the Riveria in Chicago(and perhaps others) would be ahead of the Capitol in New York. As you probably know, the Riviera opened in 1918, and had over 2000 seats, and showed movies from the get-go. Chicago’s Central Park Theatre might also qualify, though I’m not sure about its stage capabilities. Certainly the Riviera had a workable stage. So I don’t believe New York’s Capitol to be the first movie palace. Not if the minimuim seating requirement is 1000.
To Lombard Resident:
I won’t argue with you over the proper use of tax dollars, but I disagree that a restored movie palace will only benefit an exclusive few. Successful theatres tend to enhance downtown areas. Just look at the impact that the Chicago, Oriental, and Palace theatres have had for downtown Chicago. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of examples of this across America. But I do generally agree that governments shouldn’t be in the theatre business.
I believe this theatre closed prior to the 1970s. I grew up in Rockford in the 1960s and don’t recall ever hearing of it. There were a number of downtown area theatres still going then, but not the Capitol.
John, Mr. Rothacker’s painting is that of the Riveria Theatre in Charleston, SC!
Bruce, your example of the Fox-Oakland is on target. The show starts on the sidewalk, as they say. That project brought a lot of notoriety to the Fox-Oakland, so obviously the marquee means something. I wonder if a similar effort to the Loew’s Kings Theatre in Brooklyn would spur interest in that theatre? Or the Uptown in Chicago? Did you really convince Disney to put a new sign on the El Capitan? You must be a persuasive speaker! Maybe you should talk to the Borough of Brooklyn about the Kings. Seriously, maybe that would work there. If the City is trying to sell the place, maybe they should spend a couple of hundred thousand and do a marquee and sign.
Jim, I don’t dispute your argument about the large costs associated with signage. I just thought that if it was maybe a foot wider and 5 or 6 feet taller (or something on that order), it would look a whole lot better. I certainly wouldn’t expect them to have re-produced the original, or equal the size of the one they took down during the renovation (which was huge). There isn’t even a need for a really large sign since there is no competition among theaters downtown any more. However, the one there now looks like a dwarf. It’s conspicuous by its smallness. I mean, the sign should conjure up at least a little magic. But it’s a small black mark on an otherwise successful renovation project. A project for which the City of Rockford is both grateful and fortunate.
Bruce, I think the only flaw with this theatre is the vertical. During the recent renovation the very large vertical that had been there since the 1950s (or so) was removed and replaced with a more vintage design. Unfortunately, it is somewhat under-scaled for the theatre. Maybe puny is a better description, though it is similar in style to the original 1927 design. The rest of the exterior renovation work was superb, as what was a deteriorating facade now looks great.
I remember that, even as young children, my friends and I would talk about how neat the Coronado was. You know it’s impressive if 7 or 8 year old kids notice it. It was my experiences in this theatre that caused me, as an adult, to develop a more intense interest in movie palaces. In 1985 I just happened to stumble across a book in the NIU library in Dekalb, IL called “American Picture Palaces” by David Naylor. And much to my amazement, the Coronado was briefly discussed. My childhood theatre was featured in a book! That book, along with my memories of the Coronado, flipped a switch in my brain. From that time forward, I’ve been a movie palace nut.
The Midway was a very popular theatre throughout the 1960s and 1970s when I attended shows there. I remember Jaws and Superman being particularly well-attended shows. I doubt seriously that the auditorium seated 2000, since there is no balcony (there might be a small loge area – can’t remember for sure). But it was definitely a large single-floor theatre. My understanding is that it seated about 1000. There was a fire in the 1970s that gutted the lobby. It was rebuilt, but not to its original design. The lobby looks like something from a crummy mall cinema, whereas the auditorim is still in its relatively original condition. The facade is even more imposing than it appears in the photo. By the way, the theatre opened in 1918.
I attended many movies here during the 1960s and 1970s. It continued to be a first run theatre into the early 1980s. All during this time it remained in beautiful condition. The management of this theatre made sure you knew you were someplace special when you came here. It was quite dramatic when they would open and close the curtain before and after each movie showing. It was first class all the way. I remember ushers in full dress uniform still patroling the auditorium and lobby as late as the mid 1970s. The auditorium was in such fine condition at the time of its restoration in 2001, that no painting, save for a few touch-ups, was needed. Just a cleaning was done.
The plasterwork in the Coronado is magnificent, and would rival the plasterwork in Eberson’s best theatres. Supposedly, the same firm that did the plasterwork for the Roxy in New York did the Coronado’s. I have not seen a finer theatre of its size. It is certainly one of the most beautiful atmospherics remaining in America.
Why is Park Ridge trying to tell a private enterprise how to run its business? But then, Park Ridge has a history of infringing on personal property rights. It’s a very facist government there. The city’s mentality is that it owns your house or business. They even have an “Appearance Commission.” How enlightened they are.