Baby Boomer. I was just trying to identify a new “Driggs Ave.” movie site that was situated somewhere between Manhattan Ave. and the Winthrop Theatre at Russell St. If your dad was referring to the Winthrop then I guess the search is at an end. If not, we need to dig a bit more.
Anyhow, the Winthrop has a rather short page on CT that you may wish to peruse – and hopefully add to.. It appears below.
I recently wrote a piece about the old movie theaters on Bushwick. The link appears below. The old Parthenon was featured in the article and I would like to share it with you.
In writing the piece, I definitely credited Cinema Treasures as a most valuable source for this information. So, thank you for helping me in this endeavor.
BabyBoomer, great to hear from you and especially your dad. My father was born in 1924 and his parents probably had to make a similar contribution to get him through St. Stans. And my parents told me many stories about Greenpoint’s old horse barns.
Some questions for your dad: What was situated before St. Stan’s moved across Driggs Ave. and constructed the nun’s convent and the new school? Could the old Driggs Movie Theater that you referred to previously possibly have been located there? If not, where do you think the old movie house was located?
I just came across this very interesting page. I especially liked the great photo posted last June 4th by J.F. Lundy. As one who frequently rides the Q-54, the current embodiment of the old trolley line depicted in this picture, I could just imagine traversing the long, Jamaica to Williamsburg Bridge Plaza route, in that ancient tram.
A question that came to mind while perusing this page is why more modest movie houses like the Alden survived longer than their more elaborate competitors, like the Valencia. The same point can also be made regarding the Astoria and the Ridgewood on the one hand and the Triboro and the Madison on the other.
My guess is that the more elaborate palaces were initially considered just “too beautiful to twin” – a paraphrase of “too big to fail” – at the same time that their more modest competitors bent to the economic realities and sub-divided themselves. This bought the latter some additional time, while the uneconomical single screen marvels just could not survive the modern era. This reminds me of something I learned years ago in my college geology class. In studying the old fossils, I noticed that the most elaborately developed species also proved to be the ones that were most vulnerable to extinction when climactic conditions changed. The less elaborately developed species, on the other hand, adapted to these changes far more successfully.
While exceptions to this “rule” certainly exist – I remember seeing a film at an already divided Bronx Paradise during the mid-1970’s – I thing it stands up pretty well – especially in Queens. Any ideas?
If you scroll up to the great vintage picture that Tinseltoes posted here on March 30 and enlarge it, you will note that a movie called “The Old Soak” – I’m not making this up – was playing at the time of the photo. Checking it out, I found that the movie – a detective drama that starred Gene Hershalt – premiered in late 1926. So this picture was probably shot in 1927, when the movie reached the “nabes”.
Bway, with all due respect, I think you are taking a far too negative view of this. For one thing, no one ever seriously maintained that the main first floor theaters could be returned to any cinematic use. The main focus has quite properly been placed on retaining the facade, preserving the lobby and main staircase and promoting some cinematic and/or cultural use in the second floor space. The first has, of course, been successful while the latter two remain distinct possibilities.
Beyond this, as noted above, the proposed new use could have been a good deal worse and would probably have required gutting of the entire interior to implement. (In addition to the possible alternatives noted above by Paul Kerzner, something as horrid as a parking garage was actually considered by the previous owner.)
Finally, as I explained in my November 26th post, it is clearly possible to develop a supermarket here along the same lines that occurred when the Meserole Theatre was converted into a drug store. (I know that you have spoken positively about this conversion before.) Such an approach could supply the community with a much needed amenity while preserving, to the maximum extent possible, the old theater’s archetectural elements. It could also retain the old awning. In short, this approach may produce as much of a win/win situation as we can reasonably hope for.
For these reasons, the main focus should now be based upon urging the local community and political leadership to encourage the new owner to voluntarily adopt the Meserole Theatre approach in developing this site – and to consider the possible longer term creation of cinematic or cultural space on the second floor. This is, in my view, the most practical road to take.
Michael, MikeZZ and AprilY, please stop this stupid tri-ologue. It has nothing to do the real issues at stake and just makes all of you look silly.
Getting to the real issue, however, I have positive news to report. The most recent TimesNewsweekly has an interesting article on the Ridgewood’s recent resale. (It should be on-line in less than a week from now.) Among other things, it quotes both Paul Kerzner, who heads the local Property Owners and Civic Association, and Ted Renz, who is the Executive Director of the Myrtle Ave. Business Improvement District, in ways that support a positive re-development of the old theater. Specifically, Paul notes that “we could have done a lot worse in terms of what could have gone in there” and Ted stated a hope that the upper floor could be used for commuity related spaces. This provides reasonable grounds to hope that a broard coalition for the historically sentitive re-use of the Ridgewood can both emerge and be successful.
These recent developments really provide grounds for realistic optimism.
Well, I guess the second shoe has now dropped and we know where the next future life of the old Ridgewood Theatre is headed – as a supermarket. Frankly, the news could have been far, far worse. (Just think parking garage!) Things might, in fact, work out rather well if the new owner is convinced to take the “Meserole Theatre approach” in developing this property.
In way of explanation, the old Meserole Theatre, in Greenpoint, closed in the mid 1970’s and, after a short life as a roller skating rink, was converted into a large drug store. Instead of gutting the place, the new owner constructed the drug store around the old theater. The lobby serves as the check out counter and the main store is situated in the theater proper. Since the “Mezzy” had never been divided, the new store easily fits into the old movie house. Under several differnet ownerships, the old Meserole has thrived and has retained a good deal of its former cinematic glory.
If the new owner of the Ridgewood can be convinced to replicate this approach, a great deal of the old theater can ge retained for the enjoyment of future generations. Like the Meserole, the Ridgewood’s unaltered entrance and lobby can serve as the place through which persons enter and leave the place and check out their purchases. (The staircase to the second floor need not be gutted.) In addition, the now un-divided first floor theater can probably provide more than sufficient space to house the store itself without altering the basic architectural structure – and perhaps even restoring some of the former ornaments. (The floor will, obviously, have to be leveled – as was done at the Meserole.)
Since supermarkets most efficiently work as one-floor entities, the conversion need not initially affect the second floor. (The basement can probably provide ample storage space.) If the supermarket proves profitable, it might even help subsidize the development of upper floor space for community oriented purposes – including theatrical or even cinematic purposes. But the practicality of this clearly depends upon the success of the commercial endeavor.
Finally, since the Ridgewood’s awning is still very much in place, it should be retained to both advertise supermarket sales and retain the old cinematic ambiance. (The old Chopin Theatre’s awning in Greenpoint does this very well as an adjunct to its current Starbuck’s host.)
In short, I believe this approach is practical and can be successfully promoted to the new owner as well as the local politial and community leadership. It should also receive support on this page.
Just came back from seeing “The Social Network” at this great old movie house. It is always a pleasure going there.
With regard to accessing the place from the Union Turnpike station, you can also board the Q-10 bus, which begins its run just below the station’s southeastern entrance at Kew Gardens Road. It’s less than a five minute ride, serves as a free MetroCard transfer and stops very close to the theater. But even if a bus is not available, it is only a pretty short walk to the Kew Gardens
Thanks for the post. This is one of many fine articles that the writer, Aaron Short, has contributed about north Brooklyn.
Given that the old Mezzy is largely intact – and the fact that Greenpoint is currently a very hot community – the Mezzy’s restoration is certainly not out of the question. It is definitely a long shot – but this is why hope springs eternal.
Bway, your point regarding the “bad neighborhood” nature of Ridgewood when compared to that of Flatbush is well taken – and I have never argued to the contrary. With that said, two key variables between the Ridgewood and the Kings do exist and make a considerable difference here.
First, while the supporters of the Kings' revival have, over many years, cultivated deep support among the established borough and local political and economic leadership, the same cannot be said of the Ridgewood, whose level of local support has, at best, been lukewarm. (Also, even with all of its support, the resurrection of the Kings is still hardly a sure thing.) When you consider the daunting price tag that the Ridgewood’s “historically sensitive” restoration will require, the difficulty of pulling at least part of this off without a critical mass of local support and investment dollars becomes obvious. So, this is where the future heavy lifting must occur if supporters of the Ridgewood wish to do more than simply spin their wheels.
Second, as you agree, strictly as an architectural matter, the Ridgewood is simply not in the Kings. This obviously places the former at a distinct disadvantage to the latter.
Joe, it was great to view your vintage photo of this theater. I must have missed it when it was first posted.
Given that Joe’s Sept. 9th posting clearly cofirms my earlier statement that a parking garage – and an extremely ugly one at that – currently occupies the site and NOT an MTA office building, the introducion should be changed to reflect this well documented fact.
Luis, thanks so much for being the voice of reason on this page. You really hit the nail on the head.
While I do not wish to repeat the extensive comments I made last Sept. 11th, I think a few points need to be reiterated.
The landmarking of the Ridgewood’s facade was a TERRIFIC victory for which those of us who played a role in its enactment should certainly be proud. This action represented a recognition on the Commission’s part to designate popular architecture in the outer boroughs based on the historic importance of the building – even if the designated building was not, in fact, one of the architect’s major works. I think my testimony on point made this case most effectively.
In bulding upon this victory, we need to be realistic and reach out to the parties who can actually make a difference in making a resurrected Ridgewood building a practical reality. This means making meaningful contact with the local elected officials, the Ridgewood Economic Development Council and Queens Community Board 5. While these groups may have to me challenged to make this issue a prioriy, it will go nowhere unless they do so. This is essentially the strategy that ultimately worked for the Loews King.
The last thing that should be done at this time is to make new demands upon potential buyers. This is why I respectfully requested that a moratorium occur regarding requests to landmark additional portions of the Ridgewood. This will only scare away potential investors, including those who would like to respectfully redevelop the place but do not want to deal with mandates and demands. On the other hand, we should certainly encourage potential buyers to voluntarily preserve the Ridgewood’s lobby and main staircase – the two remaining items of any substantial archetectural significance.
Hopefully, if we take the approach that I just laid out, we may be able to pull this off – though, as Luis noted, this is very much of a long shot. If, on the other hand, we ignore this path, I fear that we will just be spinning our wheels.
Last week, my wife and I visited this neighborhood and passed by the Castro. While it was closed at the time, we really enjoyed viewing the terrific facade – and the tiles in the outer lobby were wonderful. This is something that you really have to view in the flesh.
Bway, again good to hear from you. I think you would like the Starbucks if you ever pass by this way. They did a nice job in creating what could have otherwise been a pretty dreary place.
Regarding the old Meserole, I have been there many times and agree that it retains the essence of the old movie palace. A few nice accounts of its current situation appear on its CT page.
As best as I can determine, the Starbucks coffee shoppe takes up both all of the old lobby area – which was a pretty modest affair to begin with – as well as the rear area of the old movie theater. The remainder of the theater is currently used – if it is used at all – for storage or for the non-public portion of the Starbucks store. The disco is clearly only situated on the second floor. My guess is that any portion of the old Chopin that is not in use has pretty much been altered beyond recognition.
In taking a second look at the picture, I noticed that it was snapped AFTER the Normandy had become the Howard, whose name dimly appears on the awning. The far more prominent “Normandy” sign reflects an era that had already passed. Seeing the Carver’s two former names in the same photograph is very interesting and pretty unique.
In response to the “terrified” Starbucks fan, one should respond that only multi-plexes situated in the “new” 42nd Street have bedbug problems!
The article is wrong in asserting that a disco was situated in the old theater before it became a Burger King and then a Starbucks. Instead, a disco continues to occupy the building’s second floor, which was never part of the movie house and previously hosted a bowling alley and a bingo hall. (I believe the old Strand Theatre building on Fulton St. also hosted a second floor bowling alley. I would not have wanted to watch a movie with bowling balls rolling over my head!)
By the way, as I noted in a previous comment, the Starbucks people actually did a pretty nice job in designing the coffee house. It has a somewhat arty cinematic theme with bare brick walls. It could have been a lot worse.
This appears to be a 1905 photo of the Orpheum, when it was clearly one of Brooklyn’s most magnificant theaters. Enjoy – and also survey other puctures of Fulton St. in this attachment.
A vintage picture of the Strand appears below. In addition, you can easily access nearly 400 pictures of old Fulton St. in this terrific attachment.
When I attended Most Holy Trinity High School in the mid-1960’s, our bowling team played its games at Strands Lanes, which was situated above the movie house. This was the closest that I ever came to this theater – and I was a TERRIBLE bowler. More recently, I visited the old theater, which is now being used by the BCAT public assess cable network, as part of a recreation of a walking tour that I had recently conducted. It’s great to see that the old place is still being well used. Enjoy the pictures!
One other brief comment. If the date of the picture is correct, it appears that the portion of the Fulton St. el serving this area was razed a about a year earlier than the rest of the structure, which was demolished in 1941. The better explanation is that the picture was mis-dated and probably was snapped in either late 1941 or 1942.
I do not believe that this picture, circa 1928, of the Tivoli has been posted on this page before. In order to get the best results, you need to enlarge the initial picture. This will provide both an excellent view of the Tivoli’s facade as well as the surrounding streetscape. Hope the link works.
By the way, this attachment contains literally hundreeds of terrific photos and maps of old Fulton Street, including a number of other movie houses. It is worth an extended look.
Hector, 1941 seems to have been the year when the Fulton el met its demise. So, the area had just become “el free” when this picture was snapped. This was surprising info for me, since I had previously thought that the el had survived until after the end of WWII.
There are, by the way, nearly 400 pictures of mostly Fulton St. on the attachment that TT recently enclosed. They provide a number of pictures of the street just before and after the el came down. You can also view pictures of many other movie houses that once graced Fulton St., including the Tivoli, Strand, Majestic, Regent and Normandy. It really is worth a few hours of your time. Thanks TT.
Baby Boomer. I was just trying to identify a new “Driggs Ave.” movie site that was situated somewhere between Manhattan Ave. and the Winthrop Theatre at Russell St. If your dad was referring to the Winthrop then I guess the search is at an end. If not, we need to dig a bit more.
Anyhow, the Winthrop has a rather short page on CT that you may wish to peruse – and hopefully add to.. It appears below.
/theaters/8421/
I recently wrote a piece about the old movie theaters on Bushwick. The link appears below. The old Parthenon was featured in the article and I would like to share it with you.
In writing the piece, I definitely credited Cinema Treasures as a most valuable source for this information. So, thank you for helping me in this endeavor.
View link
BabyBoomer, great to hear from you and especially your dad. My father was born in 1924 and his parents probably had to make a similar contribution to get him through St. Stans. And my parents told me many stories about Greenpoint’s old horse barns.
Some questions for your dad: What was situated before St. Stan’s moved across Driggs Ave. and constructed the nun’s convent and the new school? Could the old Driggs Movie Theater that you referred to previously possibly have been located there? If not, where do you think the old movie house was located?
Hope to hear from you soon!
I just came across this very interesting page. I especially liked the great photo posted last June 4th by J.F. Lundy. As one who frequently rides the Q-54, the current embodiment of the old trolley line depicted in this picture, I could just imagine traversing the long, Jamaica to Williamsburg Bridge Plaza route, in that ancient tram.
A question that came to mind while perusing this page is why more modest movie houses like the Alden survived longer than their more elaborate competitors, like the Valencia. The same point can also be made regarding the Astoria and the Ridgewood on the one hand and the Triboro and the Madison on the other.
My guess is that the more elaborate palaces were initially considered just “too beautiful to twin” – a paraphrase of “too big to fail” – at the same time that their more modest competitors bent to the economic realities and sub-divided themselves. This bought the latter some additional time, while the uneconomical single screen marvels just could not survive the modern era. This reminds me of something I learned years ago in my college geology class. In studying the old fossils, I noticed that the most elaborately developed species also proved to be the ones that were most vulnerable to extinction when climactic conditions changed. The less elaborately developed species, on the other hand, adapted to these changes far more successfully.
While exceptions to this “rule” certainly exist – I remember seeing a film at an already divided Bronx Paradise during the mid-1970’s – I thing it stands up pretty well – especially in Queens. Any ideas?
If you scroll up to the great vintage picture that Tinseltoes posted here on March 30 and enlarge it, you will note that a movie called “The Old Soak” – I’m not making this up – was playing at the time of the photo. Checking it out, I found that the movie – a detective drama that starred Gene Hershalt – premiered in late 1926. So this picture was probably shot in 1927, when the movie reached the “nabes”.
Bway, with all due respect, I think you are taking a far too negative view of this. For one thing, no one ever seriously maintained that the main first floor theaters could be returned to any cinematic use. The main focus has quite properly been placed on retaining the facade, preserving the lobby and main staircase and promoting some cinematic and/or cultural use in the second floor space. The first has, of course, been successful while the latter two remain distinct possibilities.
Beyond this, as noted above, the proposed new use could have been a good deal worse and would probably have required gutting of the entire interior to implement. (In addition to the possible alternatives noted above by Paul Kerzner, something as horrid as a parking garage was actually considered by the previous owner.)
Finally, as I explained in my November 26th post, it is clearly possible to develop a supermarket here along the same lines that occurred when the Meserole Theatre was converted into a drug store. (I know that you have spoken positively about this conversion before.) Such an approach could supply the community with a much needed amenity while preserving, to the maximum extent possible, the old theater’s archetectural elements. It could also retain the old awning. In short, this approach may produce as much of a win/win situation as we can reasonably hope for.
For these reasons, the main focus should now be based upon urging the local community and political leadership to encourage the new owner to voluntarily adopt the Meserole Theatre approach in developing this site – and to consider the possible longer term creation of cinematic or cultural space on the second floor. This is, in my view, the most practical road to take.
Michael, MikeZZ and AprilY, please stop this stupid tri-ologue. It has nothing to do the real issues at stake and just makes all of you look silly.
Getting to the real issue, however, I have positive news to report. The most recent TimesNewsweekly has an interesting article on the Ridgewood’s recent resale. (It should be on-line in less than a week from now.) Among other things, it quotes both Paul Kerzner, who heads the local Property Owners and Civic Association, and Ted Renz, who is the Executive Director of the Myrtle Ave. Business Improvement District, in ways that support a positive re-development of the old theater. Specifically, Paul notes that “we could have done a lot worse in terms of what could have gone in there” and Ted stated a hope that the upper floor could be used for commuity related spaces. This provides reasonable grounds to hope that a broard coalition for the historically sentitive re-use of the Ridgewood can both emerge and be successful.
These recent developments really provide grounds for realistic optimism.
Well, I guess the second shoe has now dropped and we know where the next future life of the old Ridgewood Theatre is headed – as a supermarket. Frankly, the news could have been far, far worse. (Just think parking garage!) Things might, in fact, work out rather well if the new owner is convinced to take the “Meserole Theatre approach” in developing this property.
In way of explanation, the old Meserole Theatre, in Greenpoint, closed in the mid 1970’s and, after a short life as a roller skating rink, was converted into a large drug store. Instead of gutting the place, the new owner constructed the drug store around the old theater. The lobby serves as the check out counter and the main store is situated in the theater proper. Since the “Mezzy” had never been divided, the new store easily fits into the old movie house. Under several differnet ownerships, the old Meserole has thrived and has retained a good deal of its former cinematic glory.
If the new owner of the Ridgewood can be convinced to replicate this approach, a great deal of the old theater can ge retained for the enjoyment of future generations. Like the Meserole, the Ridgewood’s unaltered entrance and lobby can serve as the place through which persons enter and leave the place and check out their purchases. (The staircase to the second floor need not be gutted.) In addition, the now un-divided first floor theater can probably provide more than sufficient space to house the store itself without altering the basic architectural structure – and perhaps even restoring some of the former ornaments. (The floor will, obviously, have to be leveled – as was done at the Meserole.)
Since supermarkets most efficiently work as one-floor entities, the conversion need not initially affect the second floor. (The basement can probably provide ample storage space.) If the supermarket proves profitable, it might even help subsidize the development of upper floor space for community oriented purposes – including theatrical or even cinematic purposes. But the practicality of this clearly depends upon the success of the commercial endeavor.
Finally, since the Ridgewood’s awning is still very much in place, it should be retained to both advertise supermarket sales and retain the old cinematic ambiance. (The old Chopin Theatre’s awning in Greenpoint does this very well as an adjunct to its current Starbuck’s host.)
In short, I believe this approach is practical and can be successfully promoted to the new owner as well as the local politial and community leadership. It should also receive support on this page.
Just came back from seeing “The Social Network” at this great old movie house. It is always a pleasure going there.
With regard to accessing the place from the Union Turnpike station, you can also board the Q-10 bus, which begins its run just below the station’s southeastern entrance at Kew Gardens Road. It’s less than a five minute ride, serves as a free MetroCard transfer and stops very close to the theater. But even if a bus is not available, it is only a pretty short walk to the Kew Gardens
Thanks for the post. This is one of many fine articles that the writer, Aaron Short, has contributed about north Brooklyn.
Given that the old Mezzy is largely intact – and the fact that Greenpoint is currently a very hot community – the Mezzy’s restoration is certainly not out of the question. It is definitely a long shot – but this is why hope springs eternal.
Best of luck on this.
Bway, your point regarding the “bad neighborhood” nature of Ridgewood when compared to that of Flatbush is well taken – and I have never argued to the contrary. With that said, two key variables between the Ridgewood and the Kings do exist and make a considerable difference here.
First, while the supporters of the Kings' revival have, over many years, cultivated deep support among the established borough and local political and economic leadership, the same cannot be said of the Ridgewood, whose level of local support has, at best, been lukewarm. (Also, even with all of its support, the resurrection of the Kings is still hardly a sure thing.) When you consider the daunting price tag that the Ridgewood’s “historically sensitive” restoration will require, the difficulty of pulling at least part of this off without a critical mass of local support and investment dollars becomes obvious. So, this is where the future heavy lifting must occur if supporters of the Ridgewood wish to do more than simply spin their wheels.
Second, as you agree, strictly as an architectural matter, the Ridgewood is simply not in the Kings. This obviously places the former at a distinct disadvantage to the latter.
Joe, it was great to view your vintage photo of this theater. I must have missed it when it was first posted.
Given that Joe’s Sept. 9th posting clearly cofirms my earlier statement that a parking garage – and an extremely ugly one at that – currently occupies the site and NOT an MTA office building, the introducion should be changed to reflect this well documented fact.
Luis, thanks so much for being the voice of reason on this page. You really hit the nail on the head.
While I do not wish to repeat the extensive comments I made last Sept. 11th, I think a few points need to be reiterated.
The landmarking of the Ridgewood’s facade was a TERRIFIC victory for which those of us who played a role in its enactment should certainly be proud. This action represented a recognition on the Commission’s part to designate popular architecture in the outer boroughs based on the historic importance of the building – even if the designated building was not, in fact, one of the architect’s major works. I think my testimony on point made this case most effectively.
In bulding upon this victory, we need to be realistic and reach out to the parties who can actually make a difference in making a resurrected Ridgewood building a practical reality. This means making meaningful contact with the local elected officials, the Ridgewood Economic Development Council and Queens Community Board 5. While these groups may have to me challenged to make this issue a prioriy, it will go nowhere unless they do so. This is essentially the strategy that ultimately worked for the Loews King.
The last thing that should be done at this time is to make new demands upon potential buyers. This is why I respectfully requested that a moratorium occur regarding requests to landmark additional portions of the Ridgewood. This will only scare away potential investors, including those who would like to respectfully redevelop the place but do not want to deal with mandates and demands. On the other hand, we should certainly encourage potential buyers to voluntarily preserve the Ridgewood’s lobby and main staircase – the two remaining items of any substantial archetectural significance.
Hopefully, if we take the approach that I just laid out, we may be able to pull this off – though, as Luis noted, this is very much of a long shot. If, on the other hand, we ignore this path, I fear that we will just be spinning our wheels.
Last week, my wife and I visited this neighborhood and passed by the Castro. While it was closed at the time, we really enjoyed viewing the terrific facade – and the tiles in the outer lobby were wonderful. This is something that you really have to view in the flesh.
Bway, again good to hear from you. I think you would like the Starbucks if you ever pass by this way. They did a nice job in creating what could have otherwise been a pretty dreary place.
Regarding the old Meserole, I have been there many times and agree that it retains the essence of the old movie palace. A few nice accounts of its current situation appear on its CT page.
Hope all is otherwise well – and talk soon.
Hello Chris. Good to hear from you.
As best as I can determine, the Starbucks coffee shoppe takes up both all of the old lobby area – which was a pretty modest affair to begin with – as well as the rear area of the old movie theater. The remainder of the theater is currently used – if it is used at all – for storage or for the non-public portion of the Starbucks store. The disco is clearly only situated on the second floor. My guess is that any portion of the old Chopin that is not in use has pretty much been altered beyond recognition.
In taking a second look at the picture, I noticed that it was snapped AFTER the Normandy had become the Howard, whose name dimly appears on the awning. The far more prominent “Normandy” sign reflects an era that had already passed. Seeing the Carver’s two former names in the same photograph is very interesting and pretty unique.
Thanks for the article. I must have missed it.
In response to the “terrified” Starbucks fan, one should respond that only multi-plexes situated in the “new” 42nd Street have bedbug problems!
The article is wrong in asserting that a disco was situated in the old theater before it became a Burger King and then a Starbucks. Instead, a disco continues to occupy the building’s second floor, which was never part of the movie house and previously hosted a bowling alley and a bingo hall. (I believe the old Strand Theatre building on Fulton St. also hosted a second floor bowling alley. I would not have wanted to watch a movie with bowling balls rolling over my head!)
By the way, as I noted in a previous comment, the Starbucks people actually did a pretty nice job in designing the coffee house. It has a somewhat arty cinematic theme with bare brick walls. It could have been a lot worse.
This appears to be a 1905 photo of the Orpheum, when it was clearly one of Brooklyn’s most magnificant theaters. Enjoy – and also survey other puctures of Fulton St. in this attachment.
View link
A vintage picture of the Strand appears below. In addition, you can easily access nearly 400 pictures of old Fulton St. in this terrific attachment.
When I attended Most Holy Trinity High School in the mid-1960’s, our bowling team played its games at Strands Lanes, which was situated above the movie house. This was the closest that I ever came to this theater – and I was a TERRIBLE bowler. More recently, I visited the old theater, which is now being used by the BCAT public assess cable network, as part of a recreation of a walking tour that I had recently conducted. It’s great to see that the old place is still being well used. Enjoy the pictures!
View link
A photo of the Carver when it was the Normandy. Enjoy – and also take a look of the other shots of fulton St. in the attachment.
View link
One other brief comment. If the date of the picture is correct, it appears that the portion of the Fulton St. el serving this area was razed a about a year earlier than the rest of the structure, which was demolished in 1941. The better explanation is that the picture was mis-dated and probably was snapped in either late 1941 or 1942.
An old picture of the Regency and the surrounding streetscape, circa 1940. Enjoy.
View link
I do not believe that this picture, circa 1928, of the Tivoli has been posted on this page before. In order to get the best results, you need to enlarge the initial picture. This will provide both an excellent view of the Tivoli’s facade as well as the surrounding streetscape. Hope the link works.
By the way, this attachment contains literally hundreeds of terrific photos and maps of old Fulton Street, including a number of other movie houses. It is worth an extended look.
View link
Hector, 1941 seems to have been the year when the Fulton el met its demise. So, the area had just become “el free” when this picture was snapped. This was surprising info for me, since I had previously thought that the el had survived until after the end of WWII.
There are, by the way, nearly 400 pictures of mostly Fulton St. on the attachment that TT recently enclosed. They provide a number of pictures of the street just before and after the el came down. You can also view pictures of many other movie houses that once graced Fulton St., including the Tivoli, Strand, Majestic, Regent and Normandy. It really is worth a few hours of your time. Thanks TT.