Attached is the Landmarks Commission’s press release, which was just issued yesterday, announcing the landmark designation of the Canal’s facade. (Hope the link comes through. If it does not, you can view it on the Commission’s web site.)
As one who was involved in the campaign to landmark the Ridgewood Theatre’s facade – another one of Lamb’s creations – let me express my congratulations for the efforts made by those who actively supported this most significant achievement. The Commission is also to be commended for adopting an increasing broad – though hardly inappropriate – definition of buildings that are “landmarks worthy”.
While this only represents the first step in what will doubtless be a lengthy campaign to restore the Canal as positive presence in the community, it is a terrific achievement. Again, congratulations!
Until Peter’s update arrived yesterday, Luis' comments – to which I totally concur – pretty much stopped the previous discussion in its tracks – as it should have. I would now like to provide a few additional comments regarding this matter – and a few others.
While gaining the exterior landmarks designation was a huge accomplishment – and one for which Michael Perlman’s ceaseless activities deserve prime, although not exclusive, credit – this achievement pales in difficulty from the task of turning the old theater into a positive – and hopefully cinema friendly – use.
Besides the fact that this action had no price tag, gaining designation basically required supporters to convince one constituency – the Landmarks Commission itself. While a demonstration of community support can certainly help, it is hardly decisive in this context. This was clearly seen in the Ridgewood’s case, where the amount of active support from CURRENT neighborhood residents and civic leaders was meager at best. This was vividly illustrated to me when I contacted local Community Board 5 during the landmarks review and asked if the Board was taking a stand on this issue. The response I received was essentially: “We are aware of this issue, but we have more important items on our agenda” – which they certainly have. (Fortunately, no community leader opposed the designation, which could have been lethal, but this only underlines the fact that “saving the Ridgewood” was on very few of the local’s radar screen.)
Now, when it comes to making an economic go of this new landmark, the calculus changes radically. As the supporters of the Loews King realized all through their long – and hardly complete – campaign to rescue this gem, support from the local political, civic and economic leadership is absolutely essential to attract willing developers and the private and public funding needed to make this work. And, through literally decades of hard work, they were able to develop a critical mass of support – from the Borough President to the local economic develop organization – who not only joined the campaign but put their money where their mouth is. (Given the nearly heroic extent of these efforts – and the theater’s clear architectural superiority, asking the Lowes King crowd to share some of its “wealth” with the Ridgewood is, to put it mildly, wildly inappropriate.)
In stark contrast, the campaign to revive the Ridgewood is hardly off the ground and has been essentially dependent upon the current owner who, despite sincere efforts, has apparently failed in attracting the needed financing. Thus, if this effort is to go anywhere, a critical mass of active support must be developed from a local leadership whose level of enthusiasm has been, at best, mild. These are the groups supporters of the Ridgewood, who are simply not
part of this power structure, need to engage. This will not be an easy thing to pull off, to put it mildly, but it represents the only realistic alternative.
Furthermore,given the need to attract other developers, supporters of the Ridgewood will do their cause no service by supporting measures that might deter potential investers from committing cash to this project. To this end, I would like to propose a moratorium on any additional comments supporting the landmarking of any portion of the Ridgewood’s interior. On the other hand, commitments to voluntarily preserve the lobby and staircase should certainly be encouraged. (This is the worst possible time to support compulsory actions.)
I know some of you will not like what I have said here. I did not like writing this piece myself. But I believe it is far more important for all supporters of the Ridgewood to, looking ahead, take a clear eyed view of the very real hurdles that must be surmounted if something positive is ever to occur here. One of the most painful pages on this site concerns the former Commodore Theater in Williamsburg. What made this page so difficult to read were the pure pipedream solutions to “save the Commodore”, most of which bore no rational relationship to economic reality, that were being confidently asserted almost until the day the wrecking ball began to do its damage. I don’t want this type of discussion to occur were. Yes, let us be optimists, but let us also, at all times, have our feet firmly set on the ground.
I need to correct something I said in my Feb. 22 2009 comment, where I asserted that the entire blockfront, as depicted in Bway’s terrific picture, had been replaced by new buildings. Well, based on my visit there yesterday, the three buildings situated to the right of the old Wagner are, while somewhat altered, still very much in existence. Further down the block, however, is a large, multi-tiered parking facility that certainly disrupts the streetscape.
I passed by the old Wyckoff yesterday, and it is still hosting the Witnesses. The building remains in very good shape. I really wonder, however, how 600 people could have fit into such a small building. I guess they knew how to pack them in in those days.
I passed by the old theater yesterday, just as some people were leaving it. They confirmed that, despite still being advertised as such on the front awning and facade, church services are no longer being held here and that the building is actively being marketed. Theatrical and gymnasium endeavors were specifically noted as possible new uses. While the possibility of the former is certainly encourging, the economic realities may very well cause the owner to look elsewhere.
Since the people I met were leaving, I could not get into the theater itself, though they noted that I would be welcome to do so at another time. I was able, however, to see the long and wide lobby, which appeared to be in pretty good shape. If the theater itself is in the same condition, this is still something of value. Stay tuned.
Another gentle reminder to the site manager: Please add the 11101 zip code to the title. Since will make this page far more accessable to a larger number of readers.
A few months ago, a poster on the Meserole Theatre page noted that his father actually remembered the Public Palace. This represents, to date, the only first hand verification of the old theater that I have come across. It was very nice to discover this rare link to the past.
Babyboomer, I really owe you a response, and I’m sorry that I have taken too long to do so.
I hope your father is doing well. I was fascinated to learn that he remembered the Public Palace Theater, which closed at the end of the silent era. This was the only first hand remembrance of the place that I have come across. (The other evidence is old building records.) There is a small page in Cinema Treasures about the Public Palace – with a recent picture of the place – that I am sure you and your dad would be interested to see.
By the way, I am actually an alumnus of St. Stan’s and do remember when it was one of many Catholic schools in Greenpoint.
Actually, I think only the Ziegfeld has more comments on CT.
I also believe that we have done a lot more on this page than just reminisce about the past. I am sure many of the “save the Ridgewood” petition signatures were generated as a result of the discussions on this page – and both Peter and I developed testimony for the Landmarks Commission public hearing that also reflected the discussion conducted here. These actions had, I certainly hope, a material role in at least safeguarding the theater’s facade. And the continuing discussion will hopefully play a role in rncouraging the future positive use of the Ridgewood. So this has hardly been an erercise in idle chatter – though, of course, there has been a lot of that as well.
Hector, if you – or anyone else – wishes to discuss the old neighborhood in more detailed length off line, please contact me at
However, I believe that most of the items that I raised should be discussed on these pages. In discussing the old movie houses, it is essential that we explore the relation that those theaters had to the communities that they served. This is particularly true of the old “nabe” theaters – like the Echo – that were hardly architetural wonders, but provided very meaningful services to their “nabes” for many years. Thus, in trying to determine “Who went there?”, we need to know the character of the community that hosted and supported them. The fact that this neighborhood has not existed for a half century makes this an especially valuable endeavor in urban history.
So, for these reasons, I think it is entirely appropriate for us to explore these questions on this page. Such a discussion could mimic the wonderful dialogue on the Colonial Theatre page, where the interplay of that Bushwick theater and the members of Our Lady of Lourdes parish frames a wonderful – and highly insightful – discussion. The fact that some of the more extreme defenders of “CT discussion purity” would oppose any such discussion should not prevent this very valuable dialogue from going forward.
Talk soon.
Hopefully, this will begin a very interesting diologue – or not.
I agree that their less than optimal location – especially compared to that enjoyed by the theaters situated on nearby Broadway and Graham Ave. – speeded the demise of both the Echo and the G&M Theaters.
That said, I remain very interested to know the nature of the community that the old theaters served. As we know, this area was pretty well obliterated when Bushwick Hylan Houses was constucted here over fifty years ago. I have been told, albeit without any firm documentation, that a small Italian (mostly Sicilian) commuity once resided here. These were probably the residents who, about 100 years ago, established Our Lady of Pompeii RC parish about a block east of the old Echo’s site. However, without any firm evidence to either confirm or dispute this, I really can’t be sure if this was the case. So, any facts that can be provided to fill in this gap will be greatly appreciated.
Hector, thanks to you and your 87 year old relative for providing a badly needed first hand account of this old theater. The vision of the older brother reading the captions our loud was especially interesting and got me to wonder if, in an age where literacy – especially in English – was hardly universal, this practice was more widespread. I can imagine patrons lodging complaints against those who drowned out the piano by reading the captions to their co-attendees.
By the way, does your relative remember anything about the surrounding community during the Echo’s lifespan? This was a time when Bushwick-Hylan Houses dod not yet exist, Morell St. was still an open thoroughfare and the Moore St. commercial district probably extended to Bushwick Ave. Any memories will be greatly appreciated. But what you have already provided is really terrific.
In posting the recent Daily News article, I mainly wanted to get the word out and did not offer any extended critical comments. Based on a re-reading the article and a review of the most recent comments, I offer the following observations, which fall on both sides of the ledger. Here goes:
Although I last visited the interior a little over one year ago, it hardly seemed a “shambles” at that time. The only major difference that I saw was the removal of the wall dividing the two ground floor theaters. Beyond that, the theater did not appear that different than it did on its last night of operation – which meant that it was prety shabby, but hardly in a shambles. (I did not, however, visit the upper level, where such problems as roof leaks might have taken a toll.)
During the past year, a site manager, who appeared to be very enthusiastic about the Ridgewood’s return, was assigned here. Under his watch, I do not believe the theater would have suffered any substantial further deterrioration.
Based on this, I believe the article’s auther probably did not visit the Ridgewood and instead relied other’s assertions – or his own imagination.
On the other hand:
While at first blush it may appear to be the case, the $25 million restoration cost estimate is not necessarily outrageus. Instead, it probably reflects the contemporary cost estimates that the owner was being confronted with as he tried to market this huge building for a variety of economically viable and multi-purpose uses. The key phrase here is “economically viable”. In order produce a product that can hold its own with the competition and not become a money loser, you need to make the necessary investment. Doing things on the cheap in this context is a prescription for failure. Beyond this, the restoration of the lobby and staircase to their former glory – as the current owner desired to do and that the Ridgewood community leaders would also like any new owner to accomplish – will also add considerable costs on its own. This just once again proves the points that it is a lot easier to win landmarks designation for the facade than it to turn the old building into a viable economic entity – and that construction costs have really gone through the roof.
The negative comments noted above about Paul Kerzner and Ted Renz are disturbing. They have been among the most consistently dedicated advocates for Ridgewood for many years. (I believe Paul has been around since at least the 1970’s.)The active support of these persons – and the organizations they represent – for the Ridgewood’s positive future development is absolutely essential if this is ever actually to occur. Questioning their motives because you disagree with what they say is, to put it mildly, not helpful.
So, I hope this adds to to what I trust will an informed and fair dialogue on this very important subject.
This not very positive article (appearing at the end of this post) about the old Ridgewood appeared in today’s local edition of the NY Daily News.
It clearly confirms the well known fact that the current owner could not successfully market the old theater and has now placed the building on the market. While the facade has received landmark preservation status and most of the local community leaders would like to also retain the old theater’s lobby and grand stairway, it appears that the already greatly modified theater area – which apparently will require $25 million to restore to ite former glory – will probably be gutted to make way for whatever use ultimately occupies this site. It also appears that this use will probably not be cinematic.
While this is very depressing, it does reflect the very clear economic realities of this situation. But facts are facts.
Had a free day, took a pass by and found the shell of the old Eagle much as it was before. Even the old and even more expired building permits were still in place. The metal beams have, however, become the nesting ground for a number of pigeons.
Well, I guess the grand plans of the soon to be former owner were just too good to be true. While I certainly hope that the new owner – if one can be found – will be “theater friendly”, the brutal economics out there are not very encouraging. I guess we are in it for the long haul.
Thanks for posting the newspaper article and that great link. It really provides a comprehenhive picture of the old Pitkin that I do not believe appears, in a unified format, anywhere else on this page.
The charter school story is great news for both the Pitkin and the Brownsville community. I would also hope that the renovation work will attempt to restore, to the extent possible, Lamb’s exterior facade. This is exactly what occurred when the old Bushwick was converted into another charter school. (The interior, which is probably a total shambles anyway, will almost certainly have to be gutted to accommodate the classroom facility.)
My statement that the owner might be interested in developing the site for condo housing was sheer speculation that was based upon the prime location of this property. If this is the owner’s intent, the housing in question would certainly not be “affordable”, at least for 99% of Bushwick’s residents. So this would hardly be a conflict between two “social service programs”.
Hopefully, my speculative comment was just that – and I only hope that the owner and the City will be able to work out a deal that will enable the day care center to remain in place after August 31.
The current Times Newsweekly has a pretty extensive article about this rally. While the situation does appear to be prety dire, it certainly does not rule out the possibility of an 11th – or, more accurately, 12th – hour settlement. At least one can hope.
Another possibiliy here is that the City and the landlord are engaged in a continuing game of chicken that might result in an 11th hour settlement that will enable the day care center to remain in operation. Far stranger things have happened.
I really hope this is the case, since the center is a valuable community resource and the building, which, like the old Bushwick, was probably altered beyond recognition when the center was established, is never going to return as a theater.
I guess the problem with the Madison was that the local community just could not support two movie theaters by the late 1970’s. It was either the Madison or the Ridgewood and the latter, which I believe by that time had become a more economical multi-plex, won out.
Also, even if the blackout had not occurred, I doubt very much that the Gates would have survived for more than a few additional years. If anything, it was surprising that it lasted as long as it did.
The current Times Newsweekly reports that the day care center currently housed in the old Alhambra will soon close. Apparently, the reason for this involves the City’s unwillingness to pay the extensive rent hike that the landlard has demanded. The program itself, which will be greatly missed in this needy community, is highly regarded.
Given the Alhambra’s location right off scenic Irving Square Park, its conversion into housing is certainly a possibility. Yet, given the current economic situation, this seems to be a pretty risky proposition. The landlord may have been better advised to be satisfied with a lower rent increase. Stay tuned.
Attached is the Landmarks Commission’s press release, which was just issued yesterday, announcing the landmark designation of the Canal’s facade. (Hope the link comes through. If it does not, you can view it on the Commission’s web site.)
As one who was involved in the campaign to landmark the Ridgewood Theatre’s facade – another one of Lamb’s creations – let me express my congratulations for the efforts made by those who actively supported this most significant achievement. The Commission is also to be commended for adopting an increasing broad – though hardly inappropriate – definition of buildings that are “landmarks worthy”.
While this only represents the first step in what will doubtless be a lengthy campaign to restore the Canal as positive presence in the community, it is a terrific achievement. Again, congratulations!
View link
Until Peter’s update arrived yesterday, Luis' comments – to which I totally concur – pretty much stopped the previous discussion in its tracks – as it should have. I would now like to provide a few additional comments regarding this matter – and a few others.
While gaining the exterior landmarks designation was a huge accomplishment – and one for which Michael Perlman’s ceaseless activities deserve prime, although not exclusive, credit – this achievement pales in difficulty from the task of turning the old theater into a positive – and hopefully cinema friendly – use.
Besides the fact that this action had no price tag, gaining designation basically required supporters to convince one constituency – the Landmarks Commission itself. While a demonstration of community support can certainly help, it is hardly decisive in this context. This was clearly seen in the Ridgewood’s case, where the amount of active support from CURRENT neighborhood residents and civic leaders was meager at best. This was vividly illustrated to me when I contacted local Community Board 5 during the landmarks review and asked if the Board was taking a stand on this issue. The response I received was essentially: “We are aware of this issue, but we have more important items on our agenda” – which they certainly have. (Fortunately, no community leader opposed the designation, which could have been lethal, but this only underlines the fact that “saving the Ridgewood” was on very few of the local’s radar screen.)
Now, when it comes to making an economic go of this new landmark, the calculus changes radically. As the supporters of the Loews King realized all through their long – and hardly complete – campaign to rescue this gem, support from the local political, civic and economic leadership is absolutely essential to attract willing developers and the private and public funding needed to make this work. And, through literally decades of hard work, they were able to develop a critical mass of support – from the Borough President to the local economic develop organization – who not only joined the campaign but put their money where their mouth is. (Given the nearly heroic extent of these efforts – and the theater’s clear architectural superiority, asking the Lowes King crowd to share some of its “wealth” with the Ridgewood is, to put it mildly, wildly inappropriate.)
In stark contrast, the campaign to revive the Ridgewood is hardly off the ground and has been essentially dependent upon the current owner who, despite sincere efforts, has apparently failed in attracting the needed financing. Thus, if this effort is to go anywhere, a critical mass of active support must be developed from a local leadership whose level of enthusiasm has been, at best, mild. These are the groups supporters of the Ridgewood, who are simply not
part of this power structure, need to engage. This will not be an easy thing to pull off, to put it mildly, but it represents the only realistic alternative.
Furthermore,given the need to attract other developers, supporters of the Ridgewood will do their cause no service by supporting measures that might deter potential investers from committing cash to this project. To this end, I would like to propose a moratorium on any additional comments supporting the landmarking of any portion of the Ridgewood’s interior. On the other hand, commitments to voluntarily preserve the lobby and staircase should certainly be encouraged. (This is the worst possible time to support compulsory actions.)
I know some of you will not like what I have said here. I did not like writing this piece myself. But I believe it is far more important for all supporters of the Ridgewood to, looking ahead, take a clear eyed view of the very real hurdles that must be surmounted if something positive is ever to occur here. One of the most painful pages on this site concerns the former Commodore Theater in Williamsburg. What made this page so difficult to read were the pure pipedream solutions to “save the Commodore”, most of which bore no rational relationship to economic reality, that were being confidently asserted almost until the day the wrecking ball began to do its damage. I don’t want this type of discussion to occur were. Yes, let us be optimists, but let us also, at all times, have our feet firmly set on the ground.
The old place has appeared to be having another good season this year. The cafe is really an asset.
I need to correct something I said in my Feb. 22 2009 comment, where I asserted that the entire blockfront, as depicted in Bway’s terrific picture, had been replaced by new buildings. Well, based on my visit there yesterday, the three buildings situated to the right of the old Wagner are, while somewhat altered, still very much in existence. Further down the block, however, is a large, multi-tiered parking facility that certainly disrupts the streetscape.
I passed by the old Wyckoff yesterday, and it is still hosting the Witnesses. The building remains in very good shape. I really wonder, however, how 600 people could have fit into such a small building. I guess they knew how to pack them in in those days.
I passed by the old theater yesterday, just as some people were leaving it. They confirmed that, despite still being advertised as such on the front awning and facade, church services are no longer being held here and that the building is actively being marketed. Theatrical and gymnasium endeavors were specifically noted as possible new uses. While the possibility of the former is certainly encourging, the economic realities may very well cause the owner to look elsewhere.
Since the people I met were leaving, I could not get into the theater itself, though they noted that I would be welcome to do so at another time. I was able, however, to see the long and wide lobby, which appeared to be in pretty good shape. If the theater itself is in the same condition, this is still something of value. Stay tuned.
Wow that was quick, site manager. Thanks for the change!
Another gentle reminder to the site manager: Please add the 11101 zip code to the title. Since will make this page far more accessable to a larger number of readers.
A few months ago, a poster on the Meserole Theatre page noted that his father actually remembered the Public Palace. This represents, to date, the only first hand verification of the old theater that I have come across. It was very nice to discover this rare link to the past.
Babyboomer, I really owe you a response, and I’m sorry that I have taken too long to do so.
I hope your father is doing well. I was fascinated to learn that he remembered the Public Palace Theater, which closed at the end of the silent era. This was the only first hand remembrance of the place that I have come across. (The other evidence is old building records.) There is a small page in Cinema Treasures about the Public Palace – with a recent picture of the place – that I am sure you and your dad would be interested to see.
By the way, I am actually an alumnus of St. Stan’s and do remember when it was one of many Catholic schools in Greenpoint.
Talk soon – and give my best to your dad.
Actually, I think only the Ziegfeld has more comments on CT.
I also believe that we have done a lot more on this page than just reminisce about the past. I am sure many of the “save the Ridgewood” petition signatures were generated as a result of the discussions on this page – and both Peter and I developed testimony for the Landmarks Commission public hearing that also reflected the discussion conducted here. These actions had, I certainly hope, a material role in at least safeguarding the theater’s facade. And the continuing discussion will hopefully play a role in rncouraging the future positive use of the Ridgewood. So this has hardly been an erercise in idle chatter – though, of course, there has been a lot of that as well.
Hector, if you – or anyone else – wishes to discuss the old neighborhood in more detailed length off line, please contact me at
However, I believe that most of the items that I raised should be discussed on these pages. In discussing the old movie houses, it is essential that we explore the relation that those theaters had to the communities that they served. This is particularly true of the old “nabe” theaters – like the Echo – that were hardly architetural wonders, but provided very meaningful services to their “nabes” for many years. Thus, in trying to determine “Who went there?”, we need to know the character of the community that hosted and supported them. The fact that this neighborhood has not existed for a half century makes this an especially valuable endeavor in urban history.
So, for these reasons, I think it is entirely appropriate for us to explore these questions on this page. Such a discussion could mimic the wonderful dialogue on the Colonial Theatre page, where the interplay of that Bushwick theater and the members of Our Lady of Lourdes parish frames a wonderful – and highly insightful – discussion. The fact that some of the more extreme defenders of “CT discussion purity” would oppose any such discussion should not prevent this very valuable dialogue from going forward.
Talk soon.
Hopefully, this will begin a very interesting diologue – or not.
I agree that their less than optimal location – especially compared to that enjoyed by the theaters situated on nearby Broadway and Graham Ave. – speeded the demise of both the Echo and the G&M Theaters.
That said, I remain very interested to know the nature of the community that the old theaters served. As we know, this area was pretty well obliterated when Bushwick Hylan Houses was constucted here over fifty years ago. I have been told, albeit without any firm documentation, that a small Italian (mostly Sicilian) commuity once resided here. These were probably the residents who, about 100 years ago, established Our Lady of Pompeii RC parish about a block east of the old Echo’s site. However, without any firm evidence to either confirm or dispute this, I really can’t be sure if this was the case. So, any facts that can be provided to fill in this gap will be greatly appreciated.
Hector, thanks to you and your 87 year old relative for providing a badly needed first hand account of this old theater. The vision of the older brother reading the captions our loud was especially interesting and got me to wonder if, in an age where literacy – especially in English – was hardly universal, this practice was more widespread. I can imagine patrons lodging complaints against those who drowned out the piano by reading the captions to their co-attendees.
By the way, does your relative remember anything about the surrounding community during the Echo’s lifespan? This was a time when Bushwick-Hylan Houses dod not yet exist, Morell St. was still an open thoroughfare and the Moore St. commercial district probably extended to Bushwick Ave. Any memories will be greatly appreciated. But what you have already provided is really terrific.
In posting the recent Daily News article, I mainly wanted to get the word out and did not offer any extended critical comments. Based on a re-reading the article and a review of the most recent comments, I offer the following observations, which fall on both sides of the ledger. Here goes:
Although I last visited the interior a little over one year ago, it hardly seemed a “shambles” at that time. The only major difference that I saw was the removal of the wall dividing the two ground floor theaters. Beyond that, the theater did not appear that different than it did on its last night of operation – which meant that it was prety shabby, but hardly in a shambles. (I did not, however, visit the upper level, where such problems as roof leaks might have taken a toll.)
During the past year, a site manager, who appeared to be very enthusiastic about the Ridgewood’s return, was assigned here. Under his watch, I do not believe the theater would have suffered any substantial further deterrioration.
Based on this, I believe the article’s auther probably did not visit the Ridgewood and instead relied other’s assertions – or his own imagination.
On the other hand:
While at first blush it may appear to be the case, the $25 million restoration cost estimate is not necessarily outrageus. Instead, it probably reflects the contemporary cost estimates that the owner was being confronted with as he tried to market this huge building for a variety of economically viable and multi-purpose uses. The key phrase here is “economically viable”. In order produce a product that can hold its own with the competition and not become a money loser, you need to make the necessary investment. Doing things on the cheap in this context is a prescription for failure. Beyond this, the restoration of the lobby and staircase to their former glory – as the current owner desired to do and that the Ridgewood community leaders would also like any new owner to accomplish – will also add considerable costs on its own. This just once again proves the points that it is a lot easier to win landmarks designation for the facade than it to turn the old building into a viable economic entity – and that construction costs have really gone through the roof.
The negative comments noted above about Paul Kerzner and Ted Renz are disturbing. They have been among the most consistently dedicated advocates for Ridgewood for many years. (I believe Paul has been around since at least the 1970’s.)The active support of these persons – and the organizations they represent – for the Ridgewood’s positive future development is absolutely essential if this is ever actually to occur. Questioning their motives because you disagree with what they say is, to put it mildly, not helpful.
So, I hope this adds to to what I trust will an informed and fair dialogue on this very important subject.
This not very positive article (appearing at the end of this post) about the old Ridgewood appeared in today’s local edition of the NY Daily News.
It clearly confirms the well known fact that the current owner could not successfully market the old theater and has now placed the building on the market. While the facade has received landmark preservation status and most of the local community leaders would like to also retain the old theater’s lobby and grand stairway, it appears that the already greatly modified theater area – which apparently will require $25 million to restore to ite former glory – will probably be gutted to make way for whatever use ultimately occupies this site. It also appears that this use will probably not be cinematic.
While this is very depressing, it does reflect the very clear economic realities of this situation. But facts are facts.
View link
Had a free day, took a pass by and found the shell of the old Eagle much as it was before. Even the old and even more expired building permits were still in place. The metal beams have, however, become the nesting ground for a number of pigeons.
Well, I guess the grand plans of the soon to be former owner were just too good to be true. While I certainly hope that the new owner – if one can be found – will be “theater friendly”, the brutal economics out there are not very encouraging. I guess we are in it for the long haul.
Thanks for posting the newspaper article and that great link. It really provides a comprehenhive picture of the old Pitkin that I do not believe appears, in a unified format, anywhere else on this page.
The charter school story is great news for both the Pitkin and the Brownsville community. I would also hope that the renovation work will attempt to restore, to the extent possible, Lamb’s exterior facade. This is exactly what occurred when the old Bushwick was converted into another charter school. (The interior, which is probably a total shambles anyway, will almost certainly have to be gutted to accommodate the classroom facility.)
So, best of luck to this very exciting venture!
My statement that the owner might be interested in developing the site for condo housing was sheer speculation that was based upon the prime location of this property. If this is the owner’s intent, the housing in question would certainly not be “affordable”, at least for 99% of Bushwick’s residents. So this would hardly be a conflict between two “social service programs”.
Hopefully, my speculative comment was just that – and I only hope that the owner and the City will be able to work out a deal that will enable the day care center to remain in place after August 31.
The current Times Newsweekly has a pretty extensive article about this rally. While the situation does appear to be prety dire, it certainly does not rule out the possibility of an 11th – or, more accurately, 12th – hour settlement. At least one can hope.
The attached article, which includes a number of comments, about the Bushwick was recently posted in the Brownstoner blog.
Hope you enjoy it – and hope the link works.
View link
Another possibiliy here is that the City and the landlord are engaged in a continuing game of chicken that might result in an 11th hour settlement that will enable the day care center to remain in operation. Far stranger things have happened.
I really hope this is the case, since the center is a valuable community resource and the building, which, like the old Bushwick, was probably altered beyond recognition when the center was established, is never going to return as a theater.
I guess the problem with the Madison was that the local community just could not support two movie theaters by the late 1970’s. It was either the Madison or the Ridgewood and the latter, which I believe by that time had become a more economical multi-plex, won out.
Also, even if the blackout had not occurred, I doubt very much that the Gates would have survived for more than a few additional years. If anything, it was surprising that it lasted as long as it did.
The current Times Newsweekly reports that the day care center currently housed in the old Alhambra will soon close. Apparently, the reason for this involves the City’s unwillingness to pay the extensive rent hike that the landlard has demanded. The program itself, which will be greatly missed in this needy community, is highly regarded.
Given the Alhambra’s location right off scenic Irving Square Park, its conversion into housing is certainly a possibility. Yet, given the current economic situation, this seems to be a pretty risky proposition. The landlord may have been better advised to be satisfied with a lower rent increase. Stay tuned.