Boyd Theatre

Sadly, when the IRS takesover the Post Office building at 30th Street, that ornate Art Deco space will be totally off limits to the public, for security reasons! Another nearby post office will service the public. Looking at my own photos, I see ceiling domes at the entries of the post office, which I recall.

The Boyd’s balcony underside has plaster medallions. Well, the plaster & paint experts might have a more technical name, but that’s what they appear to be. They are quite elaborate at the Boyd.

We’ve heard Sensurround caused problems at the Boyd with “Earthquake”

The light fixtures are currently off site with a light fixture restoration company. Those you refer to are a famous 1939 model, installed in the Boyd during the 1953 remodel for Cinerama, as replacement for original 1928 lights. I saw the same exact ceiling light fixture on display in Washington D.C. at the Smithsonian Museum of American History, as an example of then cutting age 20th Century lighting.

My wife thinks I’m nuts because she doesn’t quite share the same enthusiasm we do for places such as the Boyd. For her, a theatre was just a theatre. She went to see the film and not much else. But even as a child, I was fascinated by 3 things other than the actual film: the ray of light extending from the projectionist’s booth onto the screen, the lighting fixtures within the auditorium, and the credits rolling with the curtains closed (I still think that’s terribly cool!)
Speaking of lighting, the present-day hanging circular fixtures beneath the Boyd balcony — they’re “upgrades,” aren’t they? They look too modern for the Art-Deco period. Always wanted one for my dining room, with orange & white lights and a dimmer of course.

Has anyone mentioned SenSurround yet? Forgive me if it has, but I heard it was discontinued because the vibrations were causing cracks in walls and other damage to the theatres in which it was utilized. Any truth to that? The only two movies I can recall that used that SenSurround system were “Earthquake” and “Rollercoaster,” and I believe it may have been used for parts of “Towering Inferno” but not sure. Help?

Let’s say that the Boyd is saved from the wrecking ball, and a company is hired to begin and/or finish the rehabilitation. How closely do you feel they can restore the building to its former glory? Also, how much work actually remains to be completed (percentage-wise)? Let’s just hope that there are enough blueprints and quality photos from yesteryear to aid the artists in breathing new life back into this wondrous facility.

It was sad, this summer blockbuster season that, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the the Crystal Skull, did not play at the SamEric. I had seen the other adventures there and the screen cried out for the big Paramount logo to appear on it. I hope something is done soon, because jackasses are tagging it with more and more graffiti, it is begining to look like an eyesore.

Luis,
Legally protecting the interior ornate architecture does not preclude shows. Your comparision is perfect. Those major theater operators don’t have a problem with legal preservation of their beautiful theaters. I didn’t myself draft the proposed law to protect landmarked Phila. interiors, but heard that the NYC law was indeed reviewed.

LuisV, that is an excellent suggestion you made as it takes into account all the many variables that have to be weighed in in the Boyd’s case. Mayor Nutter fondly remembers seeing ROLLERBALL there, hence why his strong support toward seeing the Boyd Theatre gets saved. At the same time, the Boyd he so fondly remembers was after its screen had been reworked by master 20th century theater architect William Harold Lee to bring its functionality up to modern standards. Lee did so by going all out to protect the Boyd’s original proscenium, albeit by concealing it. He placed the new wide screen to be in front of it. Which was how it was when I saw BEN-HUR there in the late 1950s. Although the Boyd’s original Art Deco proscenium is no doubt beautiful, I question how practical it would be for 21st century presentations — whether live or on screen. Regarding film exhibitions it’s been suggested a fly down screen could be introduced, but that would compromise the integrity of the Boyd’s magnificent ceiling. It would be better if the screen could rise up from below, while, aside from the high cost of it, I don’t see why that wouldn’t be possible. But would historic status for the Boyd’s interior prohibit this? Could one exception such as that possibly be made to allow for that?

I could be wrong, but I believe that the majority of the Broadway houses in New York have external landmark designations which allows the theater owners to keep up with individual produvtion needs and modern technologies. The theaters, nonetheless, retain virtually all of their historic facets.

Could the law be written to designate the interior as a landmark allowing that changes can ONLY be made as they relate to the operation of the theater as a theater? Just a thought.

Another story today online & on the radio:
View link

Hi Brucec….you pointed out in a prior post that most American cities have saved at least one movie palace and most have saved at least two. You left out the two cities that have the most remaining palaces and (arguably) the best quality remaining theaters overall: Los Angeles and New York.

Los Angeles has at least 6 palaces in their downtown in various states of restoration, but nonetheless an architectural treasure trove of palaces. When you add in the theaters in Hollywood like the El Capitan, The Pantages, The Chinese, The Warner, etc.. it makes for an enviable collection of America’s Movie Palace history.

New York is always decrying the loss of its theaters in the current real estate boom that is still very much underway. We have lost a great many. The reality though is that New York still has Radio City, The Hollywood, Loews Paradise, Loews 175th Street, Loews Valenica, The St. George, The Beacon, The Ziegfeld, The New Amsterdam, RKO Keiths Richmond Hill, Loews Elmwood and still others that have the potential to be restored to their former glories, chief among them the Loews Kings, The Brooklyn Paramount and The RKO Keiths Flushing. There are still many others that I haven’t mentioned that have been beautifully converted to churches in Brooklyn. I also should include Jersey City’s Loews Jersey and The Stanley.

This is an embarassment of riches. Nonetheless, it is still painful to lose even one theater because they will NEVER BE BUILT LIKE THIS AGAIN!

The Boyd is apparently Philadelphia’s last remaining palace. It is important that everyone who loves Philadelphia and believes in its future to save The Boyd! It is important to future generations that they have a place to connect to how people went to the movies in the past and how the experience was so very different to the movie going experience today.

I end with this: Jersey City has managed to keep 2 of its palaces! Jersey City! Surely Philadelphia should be able to garner the resources needed through government and corporate funding to save and fully restore this precious monument to Philadelphia’s past. Philadelphia’s biggest industry is its past! If there is any city that should be respectful and protective of its past it should by Philadelphia!

I read the article in the Inquirer Sunday entertainment section about the “troubles” at the Kimmel Center. Both with design flaws and debt financing. I wondered at the time when the Center opened for one heck of a lot less money they could have taken over the Boyd and made a marvelous performing arts center and used it for films during “off times.” Because if the Kimmel Center is six years old that, if my memory serves, opened the end of 2002 which was after the Boyd closed. Granted the Boyd was still an operating movie theatre when the design, construction, etc was arranged for the Kimmel Center. Granted the size of the Kimmel Center is much different that the Boyd, however is the seating any higher than the Boyd could have offered?? Even in two “theatres” at the Kimmel. Oh well, it’s too late now. I guess with the close proximity of the Great White Way, Broadway touring versions do not need to have such extended engagements, but it would be nice. I see the “road grosses” of touring shows and see all the cities that have saved at least one of their theatres. They can spend 300 million on the Kimmel Center, but 50 million to restore a movie palace is out of reach!!!!!!!???????

That is certainly the Friends of the Boyd’s prerogative. But the man — Michael Nutter — has shown early on in his mayoral administration that he has no respect for Philadelphia laws, facts or history. Because of its remoteness, many people don’t know just how major an historic thing Northeast Philadelphia’s Burholme Park is, or WAS, we can now start to say. Originally it was the country estate of leading Philadelphia Quaker businessman Joseph Waln Ryerss, a direct descendant of Quakers who arrived to Philadelphia from England along with with William Penn on the ship Welcome. Ryerss was a founder of the Pennsylvania SPCA as well as an active abolitionist. And he made his fortune in all ways honest and upstanding, among them, the creation of the Tioga Railroad Line. As mentioned earlier, he allowed his estate — the highest point in Philadelphia — to be used by the Union Army as a critical lookout point when the Confederates under Gen. Lee were planning an attack on Pennsylvania but it was unknown where. Thanks to the role that Burholme Park had played, Philadelphia was kept safe all through the Civil War. When Joseph Waln Ryerss passed away, he left his country estate to his son Robert Waln Ryerss, who in turned willed it to the people of Philadelphia to be preserved as green open space for their enjoyment forever. And the city accepted it on those terms unconditionally. There were no provisions or clauses then — or NOW — for that will ever to be broken. And at the time the Fox Chase Cancer Center announced it would like to acquire and expand onto Burholme Park it was not like it was a dead and meaningless thing at that point. Quite the contrary, I visited this park just a few short months before this announcement was made, and I cannot recall ever visiting a park more alive, more cared for, more loved by the everyday people as was the case with that park. It was like a patch of heaven in area of the city that in other ways had become very run down. As Pulitzer Prize winning architectural critic Inga Saffron said of it in her 2005 visit to it, “Picking your way through the clutter that is Cottman Avenue, past all the diners and dollar stores, nothing prepares you for the vision of an Italian palazzo perched nobly on a hill in Burholme Park.” What Burholme Park serves as a magnificent example of is noblesse oblige at its finest. And in terms of what the infrastructure around Burholme Park can support in all directions, the Fox Chase Cancer Center could not possibly have picked a worse place to seek to expand. It had so many far better options in the city it could look to. But it wanted to take down that historic well-loved that park. And do we really have to guess why? Add to this that in its taking over Burholme Park — in all ways illegally — it will be getting a major lookout point over the rest of the city. Add to this, and I’m not making this up, you can check this out for yourselves, on the brink of its “victory,” the Fox Chase Cancer Center official who spearheaded the expansion is calling himself “chancellor,” on the 75th anniversary of when another man in history took on that title — in a place called Germany.

To anybody in Philadelphia who genuinely cares about protecting its historic landmarks, Mayor Nutter, who the moment he took office quickly approved the cancer center’s expansion without even so much as blinking an eye, is no friend, whether of the Boyd, or anything else of Philadelphia historic significance.

If in the course of the Boyd’s current sale it gets sold to someone whose only interest is tearing it down to put up a paarking garage or whatever else in its place, based on his mishandling of Burholme Park, we can all rest assured that Mayor Nutter will change his colors in a heartbeat and show all loyalties to that nefarious interest, whatever it is, and the Boyd Theatre, too, like Burholme Park, will become history. For keep in mind that just within walking steps from the Boyd is another historic Philadelphia park that many would like to see eliminated, historic Rittenhouse Square. In brief, anybody who trusts Mayor Nutter when it comes to historic preservation, whether it be of parks or theaters, is as naive as it gets. As I say, the only reason why Nutter is taking the position he is now when it comes to the Boyd is because no adverse interests have expressed an interest in demolishing it. But the moment such emerges, he will switch to their side just like that. Mark my words and watch and see.