No Jeffrey, I’m not. I am a preservationist. I believe in historic districts and I believe in the preservation of historic theaters and other significant buidlings of our collective past.
I am not using rose colored glasses. The fact is during the 70’s and 80’s the middle class was fleeing the city by the hundreds of thousands and being replaced by the poor. Today the situation is quite different.
I agree that the middle class is being driven from Manhattan, but that is exactly the reason the Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx are now thriving as the middle class is forced to go to other areas to be close to Manhattan. No one is entitled to live anywhere unless you actually own. I grew up in Queens and moved to Chelsea in the early 90’s when it was a borderline slum. The area changed and I had a rent stabilized apartment. By the time I was ready to buy a home, I was priced out of Chelsea. That’s where I wanted to live, but I couldn’t afford it so instead I bought a home in the Financial District where a new residential neighborhood is rising that incorporates many of the old office buildings as luxury condos. I also looked at Brooklyn, Long Island City and Harlem. That’s a good thing for the city.
I also agree that the city’s landmarks preservation commssion has been derelict in their reivew of potential Queens landmarks. Latest case in point, the Ridgewood Theater.
But I stick to my opinion, that the city of today is a vast improvement over the city of the 70’s through early 90’s when it was decaying, losing population and the subway cars wer dark, covered in graffiti and had no air conditioning. Not to mention that you thought twice before riding after 7 PM!
The city is expected to add 1MM people by the year 2025. Unless, new housing is built to keep up, it will mean that the remaining housing units will become even more expensive. It always boils down to supply and demand. I agree that it doesn’t mean it has to be built ugly. That’s another issue. But in a city of limited land resources, to build, you also have to tear down. The key is to keep the best examples of the old for future genrations and encourage the best architecture for the new; something that has been a failure in Queens in particular.
Alto, the other day I was walking around Manhattan and I started realizing how many of the restaurants, theaters, clubs, stores, etc. from my youth are totally gone (I’m turning 50 next year). It saddened me. But I also remember that large parts of New York City back in the 70’s, 80’s and early 90’s were dangerous, filthy neighborhoods that were out of control. Stores, restaurants and, yes, theaters turn over or close. Yes, there was an “edge” to the city back then, but I was always happy to get back home to “bucolic and suburban” South Ozone Park in Queens!
The gentrification and renewal of the city has meant that a lot of change has occurred; mostly for the good. I’m sure most of the people who grew up in the 20' and 30’s lamented all the changes in the 60’s. This will always be the case. For me, I believe New York is much, much better to live in today overall than back then.
Unfortunately, movie palaces from the 20’s and 30’s are not (by and large) economically feasible to operate in today’s world. Lord knows, none would be built today as theaters. Thankfully, many have been preserved for future generations to see how people “went to the movies” in the past.
While a lot has been lost, much remains and I also find some of the new stuff being built in our city incredibly exciting, especially downtown at the WTC and Financial District, Atlantic Yards, Hudson Yards, The High Line, Queens West, Brooklyn Bridge Park, Hudson River Park, East River Esplanade, etc. It’s Progress!
Here is the exact quote from the ad which appears on page 33 of the March 30th issue of Crains NY Business:
“Responses to this request for proposals (RFP) must present plans to lease, rehabilitate and operate the theater”.
This can mean several things. I interpret it to mean that the theater must be restored and must be able to “operate” as a theater. It doesn’t mean that its primary function can’t be something else. In addition, I believe that the parking lots behind the theater are part of the lease and this can be very valuable to a developer.
The tour of the Kings for potential developers is scheduled for Monday afternoon (April 7th) at 2:00 PM. I have RSVP'ed and will find out as much as I can and report back to this page.
In this weeks issue of Crain’s New York Business, The NYEDC has taken a quarter page ad with a beautiful picture of the King’s auditorium viewed from the stage. In it, is announces the RFP and the requirement that the theater must be renovated and have the ability to show films again!
Based on many of the posts above it would appear that a “restoration” of this theater is highly unlikely due to the fact that most or all of the interior has been gutted. I recently attended a performance at the nearby St. George which has been substantially renovated and was amazed a what a huge and beautiful theater it is. It is probably the largest renovated theater in New York City that virtually no one has ever heard of. Yet it is a 5 minute walk from the the Staen Island Ferry terminal. It’s quite a different story at The Paramount where the immediate neighborhood is uninviting and forbiding though it is close to the Staten Island Rail Road station. Nonetheless, I don’t see anybody putting up money to rebuild this theater in this kind of neighborhood and expect to make money from it.
The photo provided above by Lost Memory shows a drab, univiting marquee that most people wouldn’t give a second look at. However, when you look at the home page for the Reg Lenna website, the auditorium looks quite handsome and a very pleasant contrast to the outside face to Jamestown. It’s a shmae that the marquee doesn’t appear to equal the quality of the interior.
Warren, I would love to see The Gallo (Studio) lised on CT. I will try and find out where on this site I saw mention of this theater playing host to movies for a period of time. Hopefully, once I’ve identified the poster, he will be able to shed some light.
I guess I don’t know what the actual criteria is. Does it appear somewhere on this web site? It’s quite possible that movies did play Studio 54 for a few years (as they did in several Bway houses) so it might still qualify, but I wouldn’t know how to research that. If in fact it turns out that, yes, movies did play for a few years, we may have just discovered a “New” Cinema Treasure hiding in plain sight!
Al, I think you meant the lising for Studio 54 (Gallo Opera House). I just looked for it myself and it doesn’t appear to be listed here. I know that (on other CT pages) it has been discussed that Studio 54 did in fact show films (however briefly). I wish I remembered where I saw it. This web site is the only place where I ever would have heard it. I guess no one has ever added this theater on its own. If someone is able to prove that movies were actually shown here, then it should be added.
It has to be the Liberty because the Hilton’s entrance is right next to it. You can also see the back of the New Amsterdam at the far end of the block. The Empire is much closer to 8th Avenue.
I’m not sure, but my understanding is that any entrance to the theater would have to be through the lobby of the Hilton hotel. What was lost in the retail conversion on 42nd St was the hallway leading from the street to the lobby. I believe the lobby and full theater are cocooned and hidden away behind Ripleys and next to/under the Hilton. I have no idea as to the state of the theater itself.
Edward, the qualifications for a Cinema Treasure listing is that the theater showed movies in its lifetime. As such, The New Amsterdam, The Palace, and Gallo (Studio 54) qualify. In my personal opinion, virtually no multiplex should qualify to be on CT because they have no character to them, but I accept them because they showed movies. For me, what makes a theater a cinema treasure is the architecture and atmosphere that the actual building provided to the filmgoer which contributed to the pleasure of seeing a movie. Very few modern theaters apply, yet many banal multiplex entries appear on this site. Yet many of the beautiful Broadway theaters which never showed films, like the Cort, The Schubert, etc, cannot be listed here because they never showed films.
For me it is about the building and so I’m thrilled that legitimate theater has reclaimed and therefore saved The New Amsterdam, Studio 54, The Broadway and The Palace, thrilled that concerts/live performances have saved Radio City, The Beacon, The Apollo, The St. George and Loew’s Paradise, thrilled that churches have saved Loews Valencia, Loew’s 175th St, The Hollywood and The Stanley and happy that the Brooklyn Paramount is mostly intact though it was converted to a college gym.
Let’s face it, movies alone cannot sustain all of the old remaining movie palaces. If they could, many would still be open. As a result, alternative uses must be found which don’t destroy the integrity of the buildings. Luckily, we can still see films at The Ziegfeld, The Paris and The Jersey, but it is tough to make a go of it with just movies.
Now we must focus on saving The Kings. Hopefully, it will be able to show films again as part of its redevelopment, but the key is to restore the building to its past gilded beauty. Today the city is hosting potential developers on a tour of the property and I will be there to see if I can find out any additional information.
So, to sum up, no…you can’t see a movie at Radio City or The New Amsterdam, but thanks to adaptiv resue, people can go see a live performance at those theaters and get a feel for what it must have been like to see a movie “back in the day” instead of just looking at old photos and wonder “how could they ever have torn that down?”. I’m very grateful for that!
Forgot to mention the Apollo and The Victoria in Harlem, though it appears we will be losing the Victoria in its conversion to a hotel/office complex, we are gaining a fully restored and renovated Apollo thanks to Time Warner.
Thank you Warren. The pictures are beautiful. It’s incredible what a steep rake the balcony had! I wonder how much detail is left. If the retail space does open soon, the alterations may only have been at the lower levels but I don’t hold out much hope.
While it is true that New York has lost so many of its grand palaces of the past, there are still many that are still with us. The same is true in Los Angeles. While Philadelphia is on the verge of losing its one remaining palace, The Boyd and many other cities have only one or two palaces remaining, New York still has a virtual embarassment of riches remaining: Radio City, The Hollywood, The New Amsterdam, The Beacon, The Ziegfeld, The Paris, The Palace, The St. George, RKO Keiths Richmond Hill, Studio 54, Loew’s Kings, Loew’s Paradise, Loew’s 175th St, Loew’s Valenica, The Brooklyn Paramount (mostly intact), etc. Not to mention the two other greats, Loew’s Jersey and The Stanley just across the river. In addition, there are many others out of the public eye that operate as churches, especially in Brooklyn.
I don’t mean to minize our losses; they have been great and tragic, but all is not lost! We still have a lot left and we need to focus on keeping what we have.
I apologize for being flippant in my comments about using cheap materials from China. My point was that “Faux Palaces” could be built using the technology that created Las Vegas in all of its “Faux” glory. I have no idea how financially feasible that would be, but I totally know that the theaters of the past, with their marble, mahogany, chandeliers, tapestries, etc. will never be financially feasible again.
I do think that a theater that is architecturally significant with a well designed interior that harkens to the past would draw from other theaters, but no one is going to build it unless it can pay its own way.
Speaking from personal experience, I don’t always go to the closest theater to see a film. I tend to go to the theater where I enjoy seeing a film best. This is pretty easy to do in Manhattan where its easy to get around on mass transit.
I respectfully disagree with Justin that films are getting better. This last year I think I only saw about 5 films in the theater. In the studios' desire to appeal to the common denominator they are increasingly putting out crap. That said, when I do go to the theater, I absolutely take into account WHERE the movie is playing. There are some theaters I just won’t go to. Specifically, the awful subterannean Lincoln Plaza Cinemas and the terribly managed and unpleasant Regal Union Square Cinemas in Manhattan.
I absolutely love two theaters that have been renovated in the last couple of years; The IFC theater (the former Waverly) and Landmark’s Sunshine Cinema. Both of these theaters are extremely comfortable, esthetically pleasing, and architecturally distinctive. I will see a film at these theaters that I might not see if it were playing elsewhere.
I also agree with the above comments that screen size is very key to the theatergoing experience. Owners have to realize that.
I also don’t understand, when all sorts of synthetic materials can be cheaply made and imported from China, why can’t Faux movie palaces be built? Or at least build theaters that harken to that age. Years ago, Loew’s built Lincoln Square which paid tribute to the palaces of the past by naming each of the multiplexes individual theaters after a storied palace of the past. There is also a small plaque outside each theater with a brief history. That was a good start, but it should have gone further. Each of the individual theaters should have been built in that style (even if they used cheap material). Hoepfully that will happen someday, but I’m not holding my breath.
I’ll end with Marcus Loew’s famous quote…..“I don’t sell tickets to movies; I sell tickets to theaters!”
No Jeffrey, I’m not. I am a preservationist. I believe in historic districts and I believe in the preservation of historic theaters and other significant buidlings of our collective past.
I am not using rose colored glasses. The fact is during the 70’s and 80’s the middle class was fleeing the city by the hundreds of thousands and being replaced by the poor. Today the situation is quite different.
I agree that the middle class is being driven from Manhattan, but that is exactly the reason the Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx are now thriving as the middle class is forced to go to other areas to be close to Manhattan. No one is entitled to live anywhere unless you actually own. I grew up in Queens and moved to Chelsea in the early 90’s when it was a borderline slum. The area changed and I had a rent stabilized apartment. By the time I was ready to buy a home, I was priced out of Chelsea. That’s where I wanted to live, but I couldn’t afford it so instead I bought a home in the Financial District where a new residential neighborhood is rising that incorporates many of the old office buildings as luxury condos. I also looked at Brooklyn, Long Island City and Harlem. That’s a good thing for the city.
I also agree that the city’s landmarks preservation commssion has been derelict in their reivew of potential Queens landmarks. Latest case in point, the Ridgewood Theater.
But I stick to my opinion, that the city of today is a vast improvement over the city of the 70’s through early 90’s when it was decaying, losing population and the subway cars wer dark, covered in graffiti and had no air conditioning. Not to mention that you thought twice before riding after 7 PM!
The city is expected to add 1MM people by the year 2025. Unless, new housing is built to keep up, it will mean that the remaining housing units will become even more expensive. It always boils down to supply and demand. I agree that it doesn’t mean it has to be built ugly. That’s another issue. But in a city of limited land resources, to build, you also have to tear down. The key is to keep the best examples of the old for future genrations and encourage the best architecture for the new; something that has been a failure in Queens in particular.
Alto, the other day I was walking around Manhattan and I started realizing how many of the restaurants, theaters, clubs, stores, etc. from my youth are totally gone (I’m turning 50 next year). It saddened me. But I also remember that large parts of New York City back in the 70’s, 80’s and early 90’s were dangerous, filthy neighborhoods that were out of control. Stores, restaurants and, yes, theaters turn over or close. Yes, there was an “edge” to the city back then, but I was always happy to get back home to “bucolic and suburban” South Ozone Park in Queens!
The gentrification and renewal of the city has meant that a lot of change has occurred; mostly for the good. I’m sure most of the people who grew up in the 20' and 30’s lamented all the changes in the 60’s. This will always be the case. For me, I believe New York is much, much better to live in today overall than back then.
Unfortunately, movie palaces from the 20’s and 30’s are not (by and large) economically feasible to operate in today’s world. Lord knows, none would be built today as theaters. Thankfully, many have been preserved for future generations to see how people “went to the movies” in the past.
While a lot has been lost, much remains and I also find some of the new stuff being built in our city incredibly exciting, especially downtown at the WTC and Financial District, Atlantic Yards, Hudson Yards, The High Line, Queens West, Brooklyn Bridge Park, Hudson River Park, East River Esplanade, etc. It’s Progress!
It would make sense that a company like Wurlitzer which provided so many palaces with its organs would not survive the fall of the palaces themselves.
Is the Wurlitzer company out of business?
Here is the exact quote from the ad which appears on page 33 of the March 30th issue of Crains NY Business:
“Responses to this request for proposals (RFP) must present plans to lease, rehabilitate and operate the theater”.
This can mean several things. I interpret it to mean that the theater must be restored and must be able to “operate” as a theater. It doesn’t mean that its primary function can’t be something else. In addition, I believe that the parking lots behind the theater are part of the lease and this can be very valuable to a developer.
The tour of the Kings for potential developers is scheduled for Monday afternoon (April 7th) at 2:00 PM. I have RSVP'ed and will find out as much as I can and report back to this page.
In this weeks issue of Crain’s New York Business, The NYEDC has taken a quarter page ad with a beautiful picture of the King’s auditorium viewed from the stage. In it, is announces the RFP and the requirement that the theater must be renovated and have the ability to show films again!
p.s. I think The St. George Theatre is doing quite well! I would definitely go back!
Based on many of the posts above it would appear that a “restoration” of this theater is highly unlikely due to the fact that most or all of the interior has been gutted. I recently attended a performance at the nearby St. George which has been substantially renovated and was amazed a what a huge and beautiful theater it is. It is probably the largest renovated theater in New York City that virtually no one has ever heard of. Yet it is a 5 minute walk from the the Staen Island Ferry terminal. It’s quite a different story at The Paramount where the immediate neighborhood is uninviting and forbiding though it is close to the Staten Island Rail Road station. Nonetheless, I don’t see anybody putting up money to rebuild this theater in this kind of neighborhood and expect to make money from it.
The photo provided above by Lost Memory shows a drab, univiting marquee that most people wouldn’t give a second look at. However, when you look at the home page for the Reg Lenna website, the auditorium looks quite handsome and a very pleasant contrast to the outside face to Jamestown. It’s a shmae that the marquee doesn’t appear to equal the quality of the interior.
Warren, I would love to see The Gallo (Studio) lised on CT. I will try and find out where on this site I saw mention of this theater playing host to movies for a period of time. Hopefully, once I’ve identified the poster, he will be able to shed some light.
I guess I don’t know what the actual criteria is. Does it appear somewhere on this web site? It’s quite possible that movies did play Studio 54 for a few years (as they did in several Bway houses) so it might still qualify, but I wouldn’t know how to research that. If in fact it turns out that, yes, movies did play for a few years, we may have just discovered a “New” Cinema Treasure hiding in plain sight!
Al, I think you meant the lising for Studio 54 (Gallo Opera House). I just looked for it myself and it doesn’t appear to be listed here. I know that (on other CT pages) it has been discussed that Studio 54 did in fact show films (however briefly). I wish I remembered where I saw it. This web site is the only place where I ever would have heard it. I guess no one has ever added this theater on its own. If someone is able to prove that movies were actually shown here, then it should be added.
I went to see Crossed Swords solely because it was playing at Radio City. What a snoozer! But, I loved the stage show.
It has to be the Liberty because the Hilton’s entrance is right next to it. You can also see the back of the New Amsterdam at the far end of the block. The Empire is much closer to 8th Avenue.
Wow, the back of the theater facing 41st Street is actually quite beautiful for what it is. Thanks for the pic Woody.
Warren, I have to agree! The list is probably short, but……it did show films, however brief, and so it qualifies.
I’m not sure, but my understanding is that any entrance to the theater would have to be through the lobby of the Hilton hotel. What was lost in the retail conversion on 42nd St was the hallway leading from the street to the lobby. I believe the lobby and full theater are cocooned and hidden away behind Ripleys and next to/under the Hilton. I have no idea as to the state of the theater itself.
Edward, the qualifications for a Cinema Treasure listing is that the theater showed movies in its lifetime. As such, The New Amsterdam, The Palace, and Gallo (Studio 54) qualify. In my personal opinion, virtually no multiplex should qualify to be on CT because they have no character to them, but I accept them because they showed movies. For me, what makes a theater a cinema treasure is the architecture and atmosphere that the actual building provided to the filmgoer which contributed to the pleasure of seeing a movie. Very few modern theaters apply, yet many banal multiplex entries appear on this site. Yet many of the beautiful Broadway theaters which never showed films, like the Cort, The Schubert, etc, cannot be listed here because they never showed films.
For me it is about the building and so I’m thrilled that legitimate theater has reclaimed and therefore saved The New Amsterdam, Studio 54, The Broadway and The Palace, thrilled that concerts/live performances have saved Radio City, The Beacon, The Apollo, The St. George and Loew’s Paradise, thrilled that churches have saved Loews Valencia, Loew’s 175th St, The Hollywood and The Stanley and happy that the Brooklyn Paramount is mostly intact though it was converted to a college gym.
Let’s face it, movies alone cannot sustain all of the old remaining movie palaces. If they could, many would still be open. As a result, alternative uses must be found which don’t destroy the integrity of the buildings. Luckily, we can still see films at The Ziegfeld, The Paris and The Jersey, but it is tough to make a go of it with just movies.
Now we must focus on saving The Kings. Hopefully, it will be able to show films again as part of its redevelopment, but the key is to restore the building to its past gilded beauty. Today the city is hosting potential developers on a tour of the property and I will be there to see if I can find out any additional information.
So, to sum up, no…you can’t see a movie at Radio City or The New Amsterdam, but thanks to adaptiv resue, people can go see a live performance at those theaters and get a feel for what it must have been like to see a movie “back in the day” instead of just looking at old photos and wonder “how could they ever have torn that down?”. I’m very grateful for that!
Forgot to mention the Apollo and The Victoria in Harlem, though it appears we will be losing the Victoria in its conversion to a hotel/office complex, we are gaining a fully restored and renovated Apollo thanks to Time Warner.
Thank you Warren. The pictures are beautiful. It’s incredible what a steep rake the balcony had! I wonder how much detail is left. If the retail space does open soon, the alterations may only have been at the lower levels but I don’t hold out much hope.
While it is true that New York has lost so many of its grand palaces of the past, there are still many that are still with us. The same is true in Los Angeles. While Philadelphia is on the verge of losing its one remaining palace, The Boyd and many other cities have only one or two palaces remaining, New York still has a virtual embarassment of riches remaining: Radio City, The Hollywood, The New Amsterdam, The Beacon, The Ziegfeld, The Paris, The Palace, The St. George, RKO Keiths Richmond Hill, Studio 54, Loew’s Kings, Loew’s Paradise, Loew’s 175th St, Loew’s Valenica, The Brooklyn Paramount (mostly intact), etc. Not to mention the two other greats, Loew’s Jersey and The Stanley just across the river. In addition, there are many others out of the public eye that operate as churches, especially in Brooklyn.
I don’t mean to minize our losses; they have been great and tragic, but all is not lost! We still have a lot left and we need to focus on keeping what we have.
I could be wrong, but I think The Ziegfeld is now the theater with the longest thread (by several hundred comments) on CT.
I apologize for being flippant in my comments about using cheap materials from China. My point was that “Faux Palaces” could be built using the technology that created Las Vegas in all of its “Faux” glory. I have no idea how financially feasible that would be, but I totally know that the theaters of the past, with their marble, mahogany, chandeliers, tapestries, etc. will never be financially feasible again.
I do think that a theater that is architecturally significant with a well designed interior that harkens to the past would draw from other theaters, but no one is going to build it unless it can pay its own way.
Speaking from personal experience, I don’t always go to the closest theater to see a film. I tend to go to the theater where I enjoy seeing a film best. This is pretty easy to do in Manhattan where its easy to get around on mass transit.
I respectfully disagree with Justin that films are getting better. This last year I think I only saw about 5 films in the theater. In the studios' desire to appeal to the common denominator they are increasingly putting out crap. That said, when I do go to the theater, I absolutely take into account WHERE the movie is playing. There are some theaters I just won’t go to. Specifically, the awful subterannean Lincoln Plaza Cinemas and the terribly managed and unpleasant Regal Union Square Cinemas in Manhattan.
I absolutely love two theaters that have been renovated in the last couple of years; The IFC theater (the former Waverly) and Landmark’s Sunshine Cinema. Both of these theaters are extremely comfortable, esthetically pleasing, and architecturally distinctive. I will see a film at these theaters that I might not see if it were playing elsewhere.
I also agree with the above comments that screen size is very key to the theatergoing experience. Owners have to realize that.
I also don’t understand, when all sorts of synthetic materials can be cheaply made and imported from China, why can’t Faux movie palaces be built? Or at least build theaters that harken to that age. Years ago, Loew’s built Lincoln Square which paid tribute to the palaces of the past by naming each of the multiplexes individual theaters after a storied palace of the past. There is also a small plaque outside each theater with a brief history. That was a good start, but it should have gone further. Each of the individual theaters should have been built in that style (even if they used cheap material). Hoepfully that will happen someday, but I’m not holding my breath.
I’ll end with Marcus Loew’s famous quote…..“I don’t sell tickets to movies; I sell tickets to theaters!”
Curtains! Curtains! We love the Curtains!