Publix Theatre

Unfortunately, I think the Publix/Gaiety has had several strikes against it:

• The façade is quite ordinary, and not at all memorable — unlike the Paramount, Modern, and Opera House down the street
• There has been no sign or marquee outside it for many years, so people don’t walk by it and notice an empty theatre
• It has not had live entertainment in the memories of most people now living
• As a movie house, it was unadvertised in the local newspapers, and did not show premieres or first runs. The movies shown, at least in its final decades, were often third-run and third-rate. So people don’t have fond memories of attending it.

Add all of these factors together, and it’s hard to generate a groundswell of opinion for saving it, much as it deserves to be saved.

There’s an appeal pending regarding whether the developer can build the apartment tower that he wants, but not about whether he can demolish the building now on the site.

I looked in the former storefront window of 663 Washington Street, and saw a large pile of rubble inside, which wasn’t there a few weeks ago ;–(

I don’t know why they’re bothering to demolish the interior before they take the whole building down.

I, myself, can’t believe the saga of the Gaity has gone this far, this should be a protected theatre, a landmark…with the restorations of the Paramount, and the Opera House…I’d figure Menino would be all for restoring this magnificent theatre…with the zoning laws, how could this happen?? Payola?? I do not call this progress…at all..I’ve written letters to Mayor Meninno, and Gov. Romney, too…sure can’t hurt…at this stage…time to write more letters to the Boston newspapers…Great site…by the way..Thanks..Mike Brown

The former Republic Theatre on 42nd Street in Times Square, as was the Gaiety in Boston, was also renamed the Victory post-WWII, a name it retains to this day, albeit in present time as the New Victory Theatre, a slight revision inspired by not only its own rebirth as a renovated venue for family-geared theatrical productions, but the new, overall reconsideration of the block it resides on as well.

According to several Globe and Herald articles I’ve found in the archives, the Publix closed as a movie theatre in 1983 (not 1980 as stated in a comment above). It was never a porn theatre; in its final few years, it shows kung-fu exploitation films.

Also, it was apparently called the ‘Victory’ between 1945 and 1949, when it became the Publix.

Eminent domain can be used fairly broadly for “the public good.” Also, buildings can be condemned as being structurally unsound without eminent domain. The owner just has to take the building down. In eminent domain, there’s a process of determining fair market value and compensating the owner. The owner can appeal if he thinks the value is too low. As Ron observes, Kensington owns the Gaiety, and they’re quite happy to a demolish it.

Kensington owns the Gaiety Theatre building, so eminent domain is not involved there.

However, Kensington does not own the neighboring Glass Slipper, which the city proposes to take by eminent domain and then re-sell to Kensington.

How can local or state government seize property by citing eminent domain? I just read the definition and it doesn’t seem to hold water. Yet local governments are seizing property all the time and then turning them over to developers. How does that benefit the public?

It’s a very sad day for Boston when you lose a historic theater in a designated cultural district, a theater which has been listed by the Commonwealth’s register of historic places. Thanks to all here, and particularly Ron, for posting updates.

From today’s Boston Herald:

Gaiety may be goner after SJC nix

and Globe:

Bid to stop Gaiety’s demolition rejected
(2nd item)

High rises should be on the periphery of downtown districts, rather than in them. If they must be built within them, historic continuity and low rise buildings should be retained in the mix, like the Gaiety and its commercial block. Otherwise, you have a very sterile, canyonized district, particulary with the narrows streets in and around Downtown Crossing. And perhaps I judge too harshly. Maybe the Kensington is part of what will be an enduring urban design. I’m ready to be convinced. Downtown Boston thrived for years with residential areas surrounding it on Beacon Hill, Back Bay, and the North and South Ends, and with people coming in on the extensive public transit system. Will they be drawn by the lifeless buildings that are the exclusive enclaves of the wealthy few? I’d rather have them build another condominium tower in the Prudential Center or over the Mass. Pike than plunk the thing on Washington Street. Let them come in on the Green or Orange Lines.

I don’t know if the “ten taxpayers” suit can be used anymore in Massachusetts, let alone in this case. It was a way of getting standing when other avenues failed. Certain rules used to apply. I imagine residents or business owners in Chinatown might have qualified. I guess it’s too late now, though. Too bad WGBH came in so late in the game. Also too bad that Boston is killing the downtown with these outlandish highrises. Actually, the outland would be a good place for them.