Kings Theatre

Thank you “ERD”; it is always my hope to make our beloved subject area clear to all concerned. I was once like “Lance” and others who evidently believe ‘Well, SOMEONE must be able to do something!’ only to grow and realize that these buildings were beautiful, but never practical. They are exhorbitantly costly to run —even when packed with thousands of paid admissions each day as they were designed for!

To amplify the ‘demising’ situation: If a demising agreement exists, it is an instant RED FLAG against any use of the building by a potential buyer of the theatre, as his lawyers will quickly warn him. Any property buyer wants his property investment to be as safe as possible, and any demising will only serve to increase his risks, not decrease them. For example: suppose the roof leaks and water travels down inside the walls of the front of the theatre, damaging superstructure and throwing some of the masonry onto the sidewalk, as water flows into one of the demised stores under other ownership. Who pays for the roof/building repairs? Who is liable for the masonry striking a patron of one of the stores? Who pays for the loss of business from that and other patrons as repair scaffolding blocks the front of the building and stores? Should the new theatre owner agree to pay for any replacement of store contents? The agreement might make it appear that since it is the theatre’s roof, the theatre owner should pay for the repairs, but suppose he doesn’t want to or cannot pay the $50,000 or more for a roof job? He will find himself in court with even greater liability, while his areas of the building may not even be affected.

If the utilities cannot all be realistically separated, who pays for the utilities use in the areas that others occupy? IF it is the theatre owner, does he control the thermostat, and will the tenants be satisfied with his idea of proper temperature? If they are not happy, the new owner could again find himself in court, with all the fees to pay for that even if the court finds the landlord not responsible for the tenants discomfort. If so, the tenant will move out, and the theatre owner will find an idle store possibly soon with squatters inside that will theaten the safety and security of his building, not just the store portion that the undesireables have taken over. If such creatures (as well as four- and six-legged ones) will not leave, the theatre owner has no recourse under law, since he does not own the space and cannot enter it, nor legally turn off the utilities to it. If the former owner has abandoned the space(s), the theatre sits with one or more ugly vacancies next to its front doors that it can do little about, other than petition a court to declare the spaces in receivership, which will still not get him control of the spaces, and will take years to clear up via condemnation proceedings.

So we see that any use of neighboring stores or other facilities may prove more a threat than a bonus to a potential buyer of a vacant theatre. And the reverse is true for the owners of the demised areas: if the theatre leaks and only a very absentee landlord owns the theatre, any leaks or other problems may not be addressed in any timely fashion, and again it may take trips to court to get orders to the theatre owner to stabilize the space from which he is getting no income, and cities are notorious for being very poor landlords! After all, how long can the tenants/store owners fight city hall and win BEFORE they go under financially? The lawyers will be happy to keep the case alive in courts for many years while obtaining their fees, while the occupants of the stores go bankrupt. Such is the evil of law in this system of things. So, I never advise someone to buy a property if they cannot get it free and clear of any other ownerships or encumbrances. To do otherwise is think with one’s heart rather than one’s head, and is just bad business practice that will cost one dearly in the end.

Lance, your pain at the KING’S situation is palpable, and most all of us here agree with you that the KINGS should be returned to service of some sort, but what sort? That is the crux of the matter, don’t you see. All the enthusiasm in the world will not pay for the huge bills to repair, rehab, and revitalize a huge movie palace for which there is no longer an audience. Movie-going is declining steadily as more and cheaper options of entertainment present themselves, and even much smaller cinemas with comparatively small overhead are finding it a tougher and tougher go these days. It is all well and good to talk about a community performance center or the like, and a mixed use facility does SOUND possible, but what all these proposals lack is a SOUND financial plan, and that is what is needed to reopen the KINGS in any format. I wring my hands too as I see the years march on and the building deteriorate, but I am not going to criticize Brooklyn fathers for not spending more of the fewer tax dollars they have to pay for more than roof repairs —alone totaling many thousands of dollars. If this were a small theatre of less than a thousand seats, it might have worked out as a public project with tax dollars, but the city fathers are not stupid; they know that anything the size of the KINGS will require a large fortune to repair and reopen, and they were not elected to spend the public’s money so lavishly. As with all central cities, the people most in a position to pay taxes have moved out long ago, leaving only those least able to pay taxes for all the many needs, much less vast buildings which no private interests will touch. Does this fact sound an alarm bell for would-be preservationists? It should! Private interests will always take on an expense if they sense that they can make money from it, but they will stay well away from something that appears to cost more than it will ever return. It is part of the cost/benefit analysis that all business must make in order to survive.

I will continue to pine away for the once grand —if not grandiose— KINGS, but I will not imply criticism to any locals or businessmen who have not stepped forward. The neighborhood of the UPTOWN in Chicago may favor returning that huge theatre to use, but the history of it is littered with good-willed individuals and groups that went bust trying to save it. That city has already spent hundreds of thousands trying to stabilize the structure, and they face over a hundred thousand dollars in heating costs yearly to just keep it above freezing while it remains dark and idle. How much more can we expect the dwingling tax base to maintain? For the same reasons as the KINGS, the UPTOWN will not reopen under any private sponsor: it will cost too much to maintain, even if new uses are found. With mounting tragic social causes across the country, we cannot expect philanthropies to spend for buildings ahead of people, and our poor people must be healthy and solvent enough to pay admission to such huge theatres in huge numbers in order to keep a REALISTIC cash flow = the means by which a theatre ‘eats’ (pays its bills.) No, the UPTOWN is no model for the KINGS, for though it is stabilized to an extent, it still has no realistic model for use; how many performance groups are there that can essentially fill a four thousand seat theatre that has millions of cubic feet of space to light, heat and cool?

The stores flanking the KINGS were most likely not rented because the city faced the legal obstacles of what is called “demising” by which a deed restriction would have to be formed to separate the stores from the theatre in order to limit the liabilities of the would-be tenants, and such agreements are difficult if not impossible to reach. In many cases like this, the stores share some of the utilities and systems of the theatre, since they were originally under the same ownership. Who is going to pay to revamp or rebuild such today? New tenants? Why should they if they can go to another storefront nearby and have no such opening costs? How will such tenants be competitive if they must bear such costs that their competitors elsewhere do not have to bear? How will property taxes be assessed if the demising agreement has any loopholes in it? The last thing the city wants is to appear in court to sue one of its own tenants who object to assessments that might reflect some of the idle theatre which the city owns. Do you see the problems that arise?

Let us continue to hope for the KINGS, but not any of us advance lofty ambitions unless we have CONCRETE committments of money and use in hand. Long live the KINGS for anyone who has the audacity and money to reopen it.

Lance;
Let me know the latest. I can join the fight on two fronts can’t I? I mean this theater should be opened for performance, and I would like to see it.

Lance, there is a committee to save the Kings, and its led by the person on this message board called bruce1. If you can’t find his email on here, let me know using this board.

Gustave, Uptown is a neighborhood of Chicago, therefore the college is there.

Jim;
A committee has been formed to save the Kings. Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz is interested in the project.

This item was sent out to those who signed the Chicago UPTOWN’s petition on the CompasRose web site:

“The following news blurbs come from the Uptown Adviser, the Friends of the Uptown newsletter (visit their Web site at www.uptowntheatre.com)::)

For your cinematic pleasureâ€"One Night Only!
Memoirs of a Movie Palace and Uptown Community Portrait 2005
to be screened at Friends/Truman College event
6:30 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 20, 2005, Truman College

“Memoirs of a Movie Palace” will be screened at Truman College, 1134 W. Wilson Ave., in Uptown. The venue is Novar Hall, where seating is limited. This is a very special screening of a very difficult to find movie. “Uptown Community Portrait 2005,” a short cinema verite documentary, will precede the feature film.

“Memoirs,” a 1979 independent film, tells the story of a theatre very similar to the Uptown: The LOEW’S KINGS THEATRE, in Brooklyn, N.Y., which also remains closed without a plan for reuse. The film was shot on location as the KINGS was being closed in the late 1970s. If someone had the foresight to shoot a movie in the UPTOWN (minus the Brooklyn accents!), we would have a very similar document, with the same kinds of memories recalled and sentiments expressed.

Your attendance as a “Friend” of the Uptown is important to our efforts and goals. As major stabilization work is ongoing at the theatre building, it is a good time for us to network and get to know each other!

Donations will be accepted in lieu of a fixed admission ticket price. Truman officials said that we may park in any of the adjacent Truman parking lots (driveway located on Broadway through the McJunkin Building). Entrance to the Truman building itself will be through the easternmost doors located on the Wilson Avenue side (north elevation). Staff will direct you from there.

***"

The fame of the KINGS and its documentary is spreading, and if you are not in the New York area and have not seen this documentary, this may be your chance, especially if you have wanted to see some of Chicago’s remaining palaces as a side trip. Bon Voyage!

To all of the recent posters on the Kings…. Even though the Jersey IS opened and showing movies and featuring other events. it is by no means complete.It still is a “Work in Progress” and still hase some rough edges.It will be many years until it is restored to its former glory, but the important thing is the fact that it IS open and people seem to be supporting it.Was there on 10-9 for “Monty Python and the Holy Grail' and "Dr Strangelove> and there was a pretty large audience for this show.While Kings preservationists will probably get no support from the Jersey management, it still can be a case in point reference to anybody pitching a revival of this theater.There is no reason why a classic film venue cannot flourish in Brooklyn, so lets start to concentrate on the positive reasons for re-opening the "Loews of Loews”

It is heartening to hear that the roof has, at last, been fixed, but let us not delude ourselves that there is not much damage. It will cost a large fortune indeed. Just to hire the guys to trap/kill all the birds and wildlife in there will costs tens of thousands, and that must be done before it is safe for workers to work in there. I am a great admirer of the KINGS, but I wonder if it was not the enormous task ahead that finally stopped that once proposed rehab into multicinemas by that athlete’s group. Let us give the committee all the encouragement they need. But let us be realistic about the vast job ahead. Those photos give only a glimpse into the large scale of the place; there are dozens of places not shown that also will require expensive renovation if not actual restoration.

The old stage house roof was totally open to the elements, and pidgeons had moved in. We had them in the projection booth at the Loew’s Jersey, and it was not a pretty sight…

I agree, gustavelifting, from the pictures previously posted of the interior, from 2001, it looks like the interior is in great shape….if anyone needs a refresher, those pics can be seen, as a previous post, at: http://www.silverscreens.com/thsa.php…towards the middle of the page

The New Amsterdam is a good example Jim, especially because it’s condition was pretty horrifying before it was restored. If I recall, there were mushrooms growing in the downstairs lounge, and a great deal of plasterwork had been ruined by moisture.