All the facade from the first piece of horizontal trim above the window and on up is replicated from the original design. That portion of the facade had been removed decades ago due to water damage making the terra cotta unstable. It’s nice to see it back again!
I know you didn’t make the comment about public transportation, it was J.F. Lundy. I should have referenced the comment. Sorry.
I’m not sure the situations were different in the Bronx and in Jersey City. In both cases (especially the Bronx) people commented more than once that a theatre could never make a go of it in that neighborhood, yet they are. Not much of a go I’ll admit, but they are open and functioning.
This is almost unrelated, but, I wasn’t saying it would be annoying to watch a show while eating dinner, but that it would be annoying to watch a show from which I had eaten dinner. It’s just not comfortable to sit in a dining chair for that long of a time, and then your dealing with the noises of the audience that hasn’t finished their food, are playing with the cutlery, or are feeling free to make conversation because of the less formal atmosphere of being seated at a table. I just don’t like dinner theatres. I think they’re icky. Neither fish nor fowl.
I just skimmed the above comments, so please forgive me if I don’t make perfect sense.
geo1, I didn’t mean that the theatre couldn’t be reused for non theatrical purposes at all, just that the least invasive approach would be the best. As far as a 3200 seat theatre not making a go of it in a bad neighborhood, that’s just what the Jersey and the Paradise are doing.
Tearing out seats and putting in tables always seems to be one of the ideas that pops up, but the few theatres I’m aware of where this has been done have all wound up going belly up after the novelty wears off. I don’t know about you folks, but the thought of trying to concentrate on a theatrical performance while seated at a table where I’ve just had a meal is annoying.
One obvious adaptive reuse would be to rent out the lobbies and lounges for receptions, parties, and meetings. I think this would be a profitable venture, especially nowadays with all the “dream wedding” crap that an unending string of bridezillas want to put their loved ones through. What other venue could match the grandeur of a movie palace lobby?
Forget public transportation? In New York City? I would think access to subways and buses would be a selling point.
Anyway, If I’ve repeated anything or not made sense then I’m sorry. As I said, I’ve only skimmed the above comments because I don’t have much time at the computer today.
The theatre in the photos from January 11 was built as the “Theatre Francais”. It specialized in French plays and is identified in the book “Lost New York”.
Thanks for all your intelligent comments so far. The times square Paramount wasn’t so much demolished as it was gutted and filled in with office space. The structure which held the grand lobby and auditorium is still there, but the lobby and auditorium themselves are gone. The vestibule, ticket lobby and other such spaces were in the actual office building itself and were also gutted and turned into offices. The facade was dismantled, removed, and covered over with windows to match the rest of the building. As I already said, the facade in place now is a replica, and not a very good one. When I went to see it it gave me the creepy feeling of seeing the reanimated corpse of an old friend (brrrrr!!). It just doesn’t look right.
It is important to think outside the box but, in my opinion, anything less than returning the Kings to a theatrical purpose would be admitting defeat. Sort of a “better than nothing” solution. Loew’s Jersey was actually on the chopping block when community activists began fighting for it. The Hartz corporation was going to demolish it for office space. After preservationists spoke up Hartz said they would be willing to incorporate the lobby into the planned structure. The community decided that wasn’t good enough and convinced the city to buy the building back for a total restoration.
So, here’s hoping that the Kings also is reopened as a theater again.
Yes, we’ve been through this before, and yes it would be better if the Valencia had not been repainted, but the Paradise was so chopped up and remodled inside that it actually made a list of “lost” buildings of NYC because it was assumed it could never be restored to its original look. Now look at it! Granted it’s not a complete resoration, but it looks pretty much like its old self again. The Kings has some serious water damage, yet people are still saying its restorable. The New Amsterdam actually had mushrooms growing in it because it had been so neglected. Compared to these theatres, having to (hopefully) restore the Valencia’s original paint job, and removing that chandelier, does not seem like such a big job.
Hello Geo1, I don’t know if you’re aware of it, but it wasn’t most of the Paramount which was demolished, it was the entire theatre, including the facade. What’s there now is a replica of the original facade and marquee, and not a very good one either. Please tell me your not recommending that a good reuse of the Kings is to demolish the entire structure and then rebuild a budget version of the facade with a restaurant behind it, because that’s exactly what the “reuse” of the times square Paramount is.
Justin, I have to disagree (politely) with a couple of your previous posts. Making the Radio City Marquee an LED display would be a silly thing to do. For one thing, the old milk glass letter marquees are now rare and historical artifacts, they’re also more attractive than LED displays. Please remember too that today’s high tech is tomorrow’s worthless junk (until it gets to be about 50 years old, at which point it becomes an artifact itself ;–)). As far as entertainment in “the old days” I would say there was one entertainment device at our fingertips, it was called a book. I still use them myself! These always work best when coupled with an imagination, something that people don’t seem to want to bother developing anymore. People also had more resources within themselves to be entertained with; such as the ability to play an instrument or to do something creative. I wouldn’t even refer to the things we have nowadays as entertainment, they’re more like some sort of electronic drugs to keep us from thinking for ourselves or being able to actually do anything productive.
I have to differ with BWChigago. I have no idea how colorful or not the Tivoli’s original marquee may have been, but I do know that the marquees of the 1920’s and 30’s were usually very colorful (of course there were exceptions). The Capitol Theatre in my hometown had it’s original 1920’s marquee with milk glass letters and all. The Marquee itself was dusty rose with dark blue trim, the chaser lights were red and the name “Capitol” was in white. It was quite a sight. The Capitol, by the way, was a small second run theatre, so I can only imagine how spectacular the marquee would have been on a big downtown movie house.
It makes no difference to those of us who know our way around this website, but for a newcomer it would be confusing. If one types in “Loew’s Paradise” for example, you are informed that there’s no match found, because it’s now listed as Utopia’s Paradise (a laughably stupid name by the way. It’s like saying “paradise’s paradise”). Someone coming here looking for info about Loew’s 175th Street Theatre might experience the same thing because they may never have heard of the United Palace. If there was some way that the search could also search through the aka’s that would solve the potential problem.
In response to Bwayniteowl’s comment of 4/12, I believe that the Rivoli was not one of the first, but was THE first theatre to have actual air conditioning (as opposed to the earlier “air cooling” systems).
I think it was “American Heritage” magazine in which I read about it. According to the article, the system was not ready in time. The theatre’s doors opened anyway, while the crew kept trying to get the air conditioning running. They finally got it started about 20 minutes into the show. A quote from the manager stated that he could see patrons all over the auditorium stop fanning themselves as the cool air reached them. As it turned out, the audience thought that the delay in the cooling was intentional to point up the difference between a non air conditioned auditorium and one with air conditioning.
It’s always fascinating to wonder about the “what ifs”. In this case, “what if Eberson actually did the design for the Venetian?”. The evidence presented for the case is very flimsy though.
Mr. St. Thomas has a wonderful web page about Milwaukee architecture, but the explanation as to why the Venetian Theatre so closely resembles the Aragon Ballroom (an Eberson design) is probably that the architects were familiar with the Aragon, and liked what they saw. Architecture magazines of the 1920’s were full of photos showing all the latest designs of prominent architects, and the Aragon most likely got quite a bit of coverage. It was common for other architects to be inspired by what they saw in these publications, and sometimes to copy them fairly closely.
As far as the terra cotta details being similar between the buildings, none of the motifs on either of the buildings are extraordinary or unique (by the standards of the times), and terra cotta was almost a mass produced product in the 20’s. It’s very easy to think that there were dozens or possibly hundreds of buildings with similar decorations at the time.
As far as actually relying on Wikipedia for reliable info, well, I’m still trying to control the laughter on that one. Any doofus anywhere in the world can post whatever he likes on Wikipedia. If you look at the photo of the Paradise Theatre at the top of this page you’ll see what spelling Loew’s preferred. Okay. It’s been fun, and I’m done.
In short, if you would read my post from 2:32 today, (with apologies to dave-bronx) a building in which theater takes place is called a “T-H-E-A-T-R-E”, and just because someone wants to spell it with an “E-R” on the end, doesn’t change the way the english language works, it just means they aren’t aware of how it works.
Well, if by “theater”, they simply mean some corporation that runs and owns the “theatre” then it doesn’t need correcting at all, but if we aren’t even going to insist on correct usage of spelling and words, then why not just call the building “sohjdeijnvaoi”? Words mean things, and the way they are spelled affects (or should eye say “effects”) there meening. Since their iz a write and wrong whey to spell, Y not dew it write?
Actually, the spelling “theatre” refers to the actual physical structure in which the business of “theater” takes place. Someone needs to correct the theatre’s website.
Yes Howard, but just because a term is often used doesn’t make it correctly used. I’ve seen “Art Deco” used to describe items and styles that are way outside the art deco period and style. The term “Art Deco” correctly refers only to items who’s style is inspired by the themes of the 1925 Arts Decoratifs exposition in Paris. This style was a reaction against the historicism and romanticism which had been driving the decorative arts and architecture. The Kimo theatre, with its obivious roots in Native American style is a wonderful and unique expression of the historicism that american architects loved in the 1920’s, but it is not “Deco” is any way, neithier “Pueblo” not “Art”. Again, I suspect the name was made up by someone who either wanted to ride on the popularity of art deco, or because it sounded plausible, but it’s a disservice to the actual style of the theatre to call it something that it’s not.
Also according to the Cinema Treasures website the Fox in Washington was built by William Fox in 1927. Ben Hall’s book lists it as one of the Six Fox “Super Theatres”, and I really wouldn’t put much stock in what David Naylor’s book says. As I already stated, it has many inaccuracies in it. Any further discussion regarding the Fox in D.C. should probably be moved to the “Loew’s Capitol” page. If you wish to continue the topic there I’ll be glad to oblige.
I don’t think it’s right to call the style of this theatre “Pueblo Deco”, since that is a term that must have been made up by someone in the past thirty years or so. Art Deco was virtually unknown in Albuquerque in 1927, and was just barely beginning in the U.S. in general. It’s highly unlikely that the Boller Bros. somehow fused native and modernistic elements to produce “Pueblo Deco”. This would be especially true since Art Deco was not called Art Deco in 1927. It was referred to as “Art Moderne”. I’m sure that “Pueblo Deco” was not used by the architects, and that the term wasn’t used at all until the 1970’s, if even that early. It’s probably a term made up by someone not knowledgeable enough to know how inaccurate it is. There really are no “Art Deco” themes in this theatre.
There were six Fox “Super Theatres” as they were originally called, the five mentioned above, and the Fox in Washington, D.C., which later became known as Loew’s Capitol. If this theatre was overlooked in David Naylor’s book it would not be surprising, since I have found several errors in that publication.
Well, the first paragraph is wrong also. The original “Academy of Music” was not the first home for the Metropolitan Opera. The Metropolitan Opera company was actually started by wealthy people who were unable to get boxes at the Academy, so they started their own rival opera house.
I don’t know if “Little Women” could have pulled the crowds in by itself or not, but in the 1930’s it was still a book extremely beloved by the public, much more so than today. When the stage version came out in 1912 it generated quite a bit of excitement. I can’t help but think that the movie would have done even more so.
I know that it was originally planned simply as a, well, as a “music hall”, and that at one time it was planned to have it replace the Metropolitan Opera House, but it was eventually built with a projection booth, so they must have known which side their bread was buttered on all along. And, at 6,000 seats, you can bet it was never meant to appeal to anyone other than the masses. I know that times change. I’m just saying that it is a shame that one can no longer go to RCMH without budgeting for it, and that it no longer operates as a movie palace. It is good that it operates at all.
Hi oldjoe. I am grateful that Radio City Music Hall is still open. For me, the problem is not so much the price of the ticket as it is the change of the times. It was wonderful to be able to go to RCMH as a teenager and be able to catch a movie and a great stage show at an amazingly affordable price. That was the original concept behind movie palaces, great entertainment in luxurious surroundings at a price that any average Joe can afford. At prices nowadays RCMH has become the sort of elite spot that movie palaces were never meant to be. Will I pay one hundred dollars to see the Christmas show? Yes I will, when I can spare it.
I don’t know if this will work (not very computer literate), but if you go to this address sometime in the next 4 days, you will see a photo of the Roxy Theatre’s box offices. It’s up for auction on ebay. Maybe you can cut and pasted the address. That’s probably easier than trying to type it out.
All the facade from the first piece of horizontal trim above the window and on up is replicated from the original design. That portion of the facade had been removed decades ago due to water damage making the terra cotta unstable. It’s nice to see it back again!
Hello Geo1
I know you didn’t make the comment about public transportation, it was J.F. Lundy. I should have referenced the comment. Sorry.
I’m not sure the situations were different in the Bronx and in Jersey City. In both cases (especially the Bronx) people commented more than once that a theatre could never make a go of it in that neighborhood, yet they are. Not much of a go I’ll admit, but they are open and functioning.
This is almost unrelated, but, I wasn’t saying it would be annoying to watch a show while eating dinner, but that it would be annoying to watch a show from which I had eaten dinner. It’s just not comfortable to sit in a dining chair for that long of a time, and then your dealing with the noises of the audience that hasn’t finished their food, are playing with the cutlery, or are feeling free to make conversation because of the less formal atmosphere of being seated at a table. I just don’t like dinner theatres. I think they’re icky. Neither fish nor fowl.
Hello all,
I just skimmed the above comments, so please forgive me if I don’t make perfect sense.
geo1, I didn’t mean that the theatre couldn’t be reused for non theatrical purposes at all, just that the least invasive approach would be the best. As far as a 3200 seat theatre not making a go of it in a bad neighborhood, that’s just what the Jersey and the Paradise are doing.
Tearing out seats and putting in tables always seems to be one of the ideas that pops up, but the few theatres I’m aware of where this has been done have all wound up going belly up after the novelty wears off. I don’t know about you folks, but the thought of trying to concentrate on a theatrical performance while seated at a table where I’ve just had a meal is annoying.
One obvious adaptive reuse would be to rent out the lobbies and lounges for receptions, parties, and meetings. I think this would be a profitable venture, especially nowadays with all the “dream wedding” crap that an unending string of bridezillas want to put their loved ones through. What other venue could match the grandeur of a movie palace lobby?
Forget public transportation? In New York City? I would think access to subways and buses would be a selling point.
Anyway, If I’ve repeated anything or not made sense then I’m sorry. As I said, I’ve only skimmed the above comments because I don’t have much time at the computer today.
The theatre in the photos from January 11 was built as the “Theatre Francais”. It specialized in French plays and is identified in the book “Lost New York”.
Hello Geo1
Thanks for all your intelligent comments so far. The times square Paramount wasn’t so much demolished as it was gutted and filled in with office space. The structure which held the grand lobby and auditorium is still there, but the lobby and auditorium themselves are gone. The vestibule, ticket lobby and other such spaces were in the actual office building itself and were also gutted and turned into offices. The facade was dismantled, removed, and covered over with windows to match the rest of the building. As I already said, the facade in place now is a replica, and not a very good one. When I went to see it it gave me the creepy feeling of seeing the reanimated corpse of an old friend (brrrrr!!). It just doesn’t look right.
It is important to think outside the box but, in my opinion, anything less than returning the Kings to a theatrical purpose would be admitting defeat. Sort of a “better than nothing” solution. Loew’s Jersey was actually on the chopping block when community activists began fighting for it. The Hartz corporation was going to demolish it for office space. After preservationists spoke up Hartz said they would be willing to incorporate the lobby into the planned structure. The community decided that wasn’t good enough and convinced the city to buy the building back for a total restoration.
So, here’s hoping that the Kings also is reopened as a theater again.
Yes, we’ve been through this before, and yes it would be better if the Valencia had not been repainted, but the Paradise was so chopped up and remodled inside that it actually made a list of “lost” buildings of NYC because it was assumed it could never be restored to its original look. Now look at it! Granted it’s not a complete resoration, but it looks pretty much like its old self again. The Kings has some serious water damage, yet people are still saying its restorable. The New Amsterdam actually had mushrooms growing in it because it had been so neglected. Compared to these theatres, having to (hopefully) restore the Valencia’s original paint job, and removing that chandelier, does not seem like such a big job.
Hello Geo1, I don’t know if you’re aware of it, but it wasn’t most of the Paramount which was demolished, it was the entire theatre, including the facade. What’s there now is a replica of the original facade and marquee, and not a very good one either. Please tell me your not recommending that a good reuse of the Kings is to demolish the entire structure and then rebuild a budget version of the facade with a restaurant behind it, because that’s exactly what the “reuse” of the times square Paramount is.
Justin, I have to disagree (politely) with a couple of your previous posts. Making the Radio City Marquee an LED display would be a silly thing to do. For one thing, the old milk glass letter marquees are now rare and historical artifacts, they’re also more attractive than LED displays. Please remember too that today’s high tech is tomorrow’s worthless junk (until it gets to be about 50 years old, at which point it becomes an artifact itself ;–)). As far as entertainment in “the old days” I would say there was one entertainment device at our fingertips, it was called a book. I still use them myself! These always work best when coupled with an imagination, something that people don’t seem to want to bother developing anymore. People also had more resources within themselves to be entertained with; such as the ability to play an instrument or to do something creative. I wouldn’t even refer to the things we have nowadays as entertainment, they’re more like some sort of electronic drugs to keep us from thinking for ourselves or being able to actually do anything productive.
I have to differ with BWChigago. I have no idea how colorful or not the Tivoli’s original marquee may have been, but I do know that the marquees of the 1920’s and 30’s were usually very colorful (of course there were exceptions). The Capitol Theatre in my hometown had it’s original 1920’s marquee with milk glass letters and all. The Marquee itself was dusty rose with dark blue trim, the chaser lights were red and the name “Capitol” was in white. It was quite a sight. The Capitol, by the way, was a small second run theatre, so I can only imagine how spectacular the marquee would have been on a big downtown movie house.
It makes no difference to those of us who know our way around this website, but for a newcomer it would be confusing. If one types in “Loew’s Paradise” for example, you are informed that there’s no match found, because it’s now listed as Utopia’s Paradise (a laughably stupid name by the way. It’s like saying “paradise’s paradise”). Someone coming here looking for info about Loew’s 175th Street Theatre might experience the same thing because they may never have heard of the United Palace. If there was some way that the search could also search through the aka’s that would solve the potential problem.
In response to Bwayniteowl’s comment of 4/12, I believe that the Rivoli was not one of the first, but was THE first theatre to have actual air conditioning (as opposed to the earlier “air cooling” systems).
I think it was “American Heritage” magazine in which I read about it. According to the article, the system was not ready in time. The theatre’s doors opened anyway, while the crew kept trying to get the air conditioning running. They finally got it started about 20 minutes into the show. A quote from the manager stated that he could see patrons all over the auditorium stop fanning themselves as the cool air reached them. As it turned out, the audience thought that the delay in the cooling was intentional to point up the difference between a non air conditioned auditorium and one with air conditioning.
It’s always fascinating to wonder about the “what ifs”. In this case, “what if Eberson actually did the design for the Venetian?”. The evidence presented for the case is very flimsy though.
Mr. St. Thomas has a wonderful web page about Milwaukee architecture, but the explanation as to why the Venetian Theatre so closely resembles the Aragon Ballroom (an Eberson design) is probably that the architects were familiar with the Aragon, and liked what they saw. Architecture magazines of the 1920’s were full of photos showing all the latest designs of prominent architects, and the Aragon most likely got quite a bit of coverage. It was common for other architects to be inspired by what they saw in these publications, and sometimes to copy them fairly closely.
As far as the terra cotta details being similar between the buildings, none of the motifs on either of the buildings are extraordinary or unique (by the standards of the times), and terra cotta was almost a mass produced product in the 20’s. It’s very easy to think that there were dozens or possibly hundreds of buildings with similar decorations at the time.
As far as actually relying on Wikipedia for reliable info, well, I’m still trying to control the laughter on that one. Any doofus anywhere in the world can post whatever he likes on Wikipedia. If you look at the photo of the Paradise Theatre at the top of this page you’ll see what spelling Loew’s preferred. Okay. It’s been fun, and I’m done.
In short, if you would read my post from 2:32 today, (with apologies to dave-bronx) a building in which theater takes place is called a “T-H-E-A-T-R-E”, and just because someone wants to spell it with an “E-R” on the end, doesn’t change the way the english language works, it just means they aren’t aware of how it works.
Well, if by “theater”, they simply mean some corporation that runs and owns the “theatre” then it doesn’t need correcting at all, but if we aren’t even going to insist on correct usage of spelling and words, then why not just call the building “sohjdeijnvaoi”? Words mean things, and the way they are spelled affects (or should eye say “effects”) there meening. Since their iz a write and wrong whey to spell, Y not dew it write?
Actually, the spelling “theatre” refers to the actual physical structure in which the business of “theater” takes place. Someone needs to correct the theatre’s website.
Yes Howard, but just because a term is often used doesn’t make it correctly used. I’ve seen “Art Deco” used to describe items and styles that are way outside the art deco period and style. The term “Art Deco” correctly refers only to items who’s style is inspired by the themes of the 1925 Arts Decoratifs exposition in Paris. This style was a reaction against the historicism and romanticism which had been driving the decorative arts and architecture. The Kimo theatre, with its obivious roots in Native American style is a wonderful and unique expression of the historicism that american architects loved in the 1920’s, but it is not “Deco” is any way, neithier “Pueblo” not “Art”. Again, I suspect the name was made up by someone who either wanted to ride on the popularity of art deco, or because it sounded plausible, but it’s a disservice to the actual style of the theatre to call it something that it’s not.
Also according to the Cinema Treasures website the Fox in Washington was built by William Fox in 1927. Ben Hall’s book lists it as one of the Six Fox “Super Theatres”, and I really wouldn’t put much stock in what David Naylor’s book says. As I already stated, it has many inaccuracies in it. Any further discussion regarding the Fox in D.C. should probably be moved to the “Loew’s Capitol” page. If you wish to continue the topic there I’ll be glad to oblige.
I don’t think it’s right to call the style of this theatre “Pueblo Deco”, since that is a term that must have been made up by someone in the past thirty years or so. Art Deco was virtually unknown in Albuquerque in 1927, and was just barely beginning in the U.S. in general. It’s highly unlikely that the Boller Bros. somehow fused native and modernistic elements to produce “Pueblo Deco”. This would be especially true since Art Deco was not called Art Deco in 1927. It was referred to as “Art Moderne”. I’m sure that “Pueblo Deco” was not used by the architects, and that the term wasn’t used at all until the 1970’s, if even that early. It’s probably a term made up by someone not knowledgeable enough to know how inaccurate it is. There really are no “Art Deco” themes in this theatre.
There were six Fox “Super Theatres” as they were originally called, the five mentioned above, and the Fox in Washington, D.C., which later became known as Loew’s Capitol. If this theatre was overlooked in David Naylor’s book it would not be surprising, since I have found several errors in that publication.
Well, the first paragraph is wrong also. The original “Academy of Music” was not the first home for the Metropolitan Opera. The Metropolitan Opera company was actually started by wealthy people who were unable to get boxes at the Academy, so they started their own rival opera house.
I don’t know if “Little Women” could have pulled the crowds in by itself or not, but in the 1930’s it was still a book extremely beloved by the public, much more so than today. When the stage version came out in 1912 it generated quite a bit of excitement. I can’t help but think that the movie would have done even more so.
I know that it was originally planned simply as a, well, as a “music hall”, and that at one time it was planned to have it replace the Metropolitan Opera House, but it was eventually built with a projection booth, so they must have known which side their bread was buttered on all along. And, at 6,000 seats, you can bet it was never meant to appeal to anyone other than the masses. I know that times change. I’m just saying that it is a shame that one can no longer go to RCMH without budgeting for it, and that it no longer operates as a movie palace. It is good that it operates at all.
Hi oldjoe. I am grateful that Radio City Music Hall is still open. For me, the problem is not so much the price of the ticket as it is the change of the times. It was wonderful to be able to go to RCMH as a teenager and be able to catch a movie and a great stage show at an amazingly affordable price. That was the original concept behind movie palaces, great entertainment in luxurious surroundings at a price that any average Joe can afford. At prices nowadays RCMH has become the sort of elite spot that movie palaces were never meant to be. Will I pay one hundred dollars to see the Christmas show? Yes I will, when I can spare it.
I don’t know if this will work (not very computer literate), but if you go to this address sometime in the next 4 days, you will see a photo of the Roxy Theatre’s box offices. It’s up for auction on ebay. Maybe you can cut and pasted the address. That’s probably easier than trying to type it out.
View link