I’m sorry Mc, I can’t access the LA Times article, but thank you for catching my HUMONGOUS typo:
[The Rialto is owned by “a family trust who’s trustee has business interests in” the city of So Pas.]
Also to clarify:
[Plus Caltrans itself has stated that such a 710 tunnel could never be insured during construction because of “the vulnerability of such an ambitious structure to” terrorism and earthquakes “and the resultingly high cost of insuring against such mishaps, might still preclude the tunnel’s construction.]
The Rialto is owned by the city of So Pas. It was leased to Landmark for 100 years. They apparently are exiting early.
Regarding the 710 frwy:
The sole purpose for the 710 “tunnel freeway” is to provide a goods movement route from the Ports of LA and Long Beach to shipping destinations in CA, AZ, NM, and NV. The ports have a plan to quadruple in size and jam all local freeways with their trucking of goods. They want “us CA’s” to pay for this tunnel freeway with our tax dollars so that they can boost profits without the cost outlay. Have you driven on the 710 south of the 5 frwy?. Imagine that traffic x4 now using the 210, 134, 60, 10, 5, 91, and 405. Trucks destroy/chew up freeways and we the taxpayers again will have to pay for the repairs (and slog through the years of repair construction). On top of that, Trucks bring a deadly form of pollution to the communities surrounding the freeways (both diesel and tire particulate). Plus Caltrans itself has stated that such a 710 tunnel could never be insured during construction because of terrorism and earthquakes.
I highly suggest we all support Supervisor Mike Antonovich’s concept of using short haul trains (“electric” I hope) to transports goods to a hub located outside LA to eliminate the need for a good deal of our current inner city truck traffic (plus planned Ports increase). We need to think long term into the future, or we will all be paying the price later with over-congestion on all freeways. Developers are treating So. California as though we aspire to be like Manhattan NY. Most Manhattans don’t own cars (they’ve given up). All this high density building and Ports expansion we are doing is only going to take us down that same path.
After attending the July 22, 2004 Community Redevelopment Commission (CRC) meeting here in South Pasadena, I became concerned about the fate of our Rialto theater. I wrote the July 23 2004 notice above. I’m hoping to find people through this site who love old theaters enough to write an email to the South Pasadena City Council asking them to restore/preserve this unique theater which currently remains intact. My hope is that there is support for the continued existence of this unique theater as an historically intact theater (inside and out).
Currently the Rialto shows independent films. Our Mayor, Ten, expressed an interest in seeing more mainstream films shown there. In the (CRC) “framework” plans it was even suggested that the theater could be divided up. Perhaps we need to suggest to the CRC and South Pasadena City Council persons that the redevelopment plans for the business district of South Pasadena should include the construction of a separate, new theater to accommodate multiple mainstream film releases. This would possibly remove pressure from the Rialto and allow it to continue to be used as a special single screen venue or theatrical stage.
Please take a few minutes and help protect this part of our heritage from being divided into a multiplex.
Please read the July 23 2004 notice above and send your email comments to -pasadena.ca.us
As of July 23. 2004:
The Rialto is in danger now to some degree. It is listed in the “Framework for Downtown Development” in the City of South Pasadena. Its future use may change.
On Page 11 of their special report from the Community Redevelopment Commission (CRC) Feb 18 2004. They state:
“7. The Rialto Theater is a key building in terms of its historic design and function and its potential to be an anchor and catalyst for future activity. The building is thought by some to be an opportunity for a public facility, incorporating the theater and using it as community space. Some feel that the CRA will need to reestablish eminent domain in order to facilitate the more appropriate reuse of certain properties. In any case, the exterior and the marquee should be renovated and refurbished. Others feel strongly that it should be completely refurbished and remain a theater, whether one screen or reconfigured to several small screens. Customers desire a better sound system, more comfortable seats, and more diverse and more extensive programming”
The Community Redevelopment Commission will now be meeting to discuss their redevelopment vision. If you are interested in preserving it as a theater you need to let the City Council and Community Redevelopment Commission know how you feel. Tell them what you’d like done with the theater. Do you want to maintain the use of the property as a historically intact theater (inside and out) remaining a single screen functioning theater? Or do you want it to become a public facility, incorporating the theater and using it as community space? Or do you want to see it reconfigured to several small screens? Currently it shows independent films. Mayor Ten was in favor of seeing more mainstream films shown there. Please let your opinion be known.
Please send email comments to:
The City Council persons and Community Redevelopment Commission. You can do this by e-mailing Sally Kilby – City Clerk, at -pasadena.ca.us or you may write to the City Council, c/o
Sally Kilby, at City Hall, 1414 Mission Street, South Pasadena, CA 91030.
We must assure that the Council persons and Community Redevelopment Commission understand that there is support for the continued existence of this unique theater.
Or Phone the Message Center:
(626) 403-7218
(Voice Mail for Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Councilmembers)
Community Redevelopment Commission
7:00 p.m. meetings
2nd Wednesday of each month
City council Chambers • 1424 Mission Street
South Pasadena CA, 91030
Moi
I’m sorry Mc, I can’t access the LA Times article, but thank you for catching my HUMONGOUS typo:
[The Rialto is owned by “a family trust who’s trustee has business interests in” the city of So Pas.]
Also to clarify:
[Plus Caltrans itself has stated that such a 710 tunnel could never be insured during construction because of “the vulnerability of such an ambitious structure to” terrorism and earthquakes “and the resultingly high cost of insuring against such mishaps, might still preclude the tunnel’s construction.]
The Rialto is owned by the city of So Pas. It was leased to Landmark for 100 years. They apparently are exiting early.
Regarding the 710 frwy:
The sole purpose for the 710 “tunnel freeway” is to provide a goods movement route from the Ports of LA and Long Beach to shipping destinations in CA, AZ, NM, and NV. The ports have a plan to quadruple in size and jam all local freeways with their trucking of goods. They want “us CA’s” to pay for this tunnel freeway with our tax dollars so that they can boost profits without the cost outlay. Have you driven on the 710 south of the 5 frwy?. Imagine that traffic x4 now using the 210, 134, 60, 10, 5, 91, and 405. Trucks destroy/chew up freeways and we the taxpayers again will have to pay for the repairs (and slog through the years of repair construction). On top of that, Trucks bring a deadly form of pollution to the communities surrounding the freeways (both diesel and tire particulate). Plus Caltrans itself has stated that such a 710 tunnel could never be insured during construction because of terrorism and earthquakes.
I highly suggest we all support Supervisor Mike Antonovich’s concept of using short haul trains (“electric” I hope) to transports goods to a hub located outside LA to eliminate the need for a good deal of our current inner city truck traffic (plus planned Ports increase). We need to think long term into the future, or we will all be paying the price later with over-congestion on all freeways. Developers are treating So. California as though we aspire to be like Manhattan NY. Most Manhattans don’t own cars (they’ve given up). All this high density building and Ports expansion we are doing is only going to take us down that same path.
After attending the July 22, 2004 Community Redevelopment Commission (CRC) meeting here in South Pasadena, I became concerned about the fate of our Rialto theater. I wrote the July 23 2004 notice above. I’m hoping to find people through this site who love old theaters enough to write an email to the South Pasadena City Council asking them to restore/preserve this unique theater which currently remains intact. My hope is that there is support for the continued existence of this unique theater as an historically intact theater (inside and out).
Currently the Rialto shows independent films. Our Mayor, Ten, expressed an interest in seeing more mainstream films shown there. In the (CRC) “framework” plans it was even suggested that the theater could be divided up. Perhaps we need to suggest to the CRC and South Pasadena City Council persons that the redevelopment plans for the business district of South Pasadena should include the construction of a separate, new theater to accommodate multiple mainstream film releases. This would possibly remove pressure from the Rialto and allow it to continue to be used as a special single screen venue or theatrical stage.
Please take a few minutes and help protect this part of our heritage from being divided into a multiplex.
Please read the July 23 2004 notice above and send your email comments to -pasadena.ca.us
Moi
As of July 23. 2004:
The Rialto is in danger now to some degree. It is listed in the “Framework for Downtown Development” in the City of South Pasadena. Its future use may change.
On Page 11 of their special report from the Community Redevelopment Commission (CRC) Feb 18 2004. They state:
“7. The Rialto Theater is a key building in terms of its historic design and function and its potential to be an anchor and catalyst for future activity. The building is thought by some to be an opportunity for a public facility, incorporating the theater and using it as community space. Some feel that the CRA will need to reestablish eminent domain in order to facilitate the more appropriate reuse of certain properties. In any case, the exterior and the marquee should be renovated and refurbished. Others feel strongly that it should be completely refurbished and remain a theater, whether one screen or reconfigured to several small screens. Customers desire a better sound system, more comfortable seats, and more diverse and more extensive programming”
The Community Redevelopment Commission will now be meeting to discuss their redevelopment vision. If you are interested in preserving it as a theater you need to let the City Council and Community Redevelopment Commission know how you feel. Tell them what you’d like done with the theater. Do you want to maintain the use of the property as a historically intact theater (inside and out) remaining a single screen functioning theater? Or do you want it to become a public facility, incorporating the theater and using it as community space? Or do you want to see it reconfigured to several small screens? Currently it shows independent films. Mayor Ten was in favor of seeing more mainstream films shown there. Please let your opinion be known.
Please send email comments to:
The City Council persons and Community Redevelopment Commission. You can do this by e-mailing Sally Kilby – City Clerk, at -pasadena.ca.us or you may write to the City Council, c/o
Sally Kilby, at City Hall, 1414 Mission Street, South Pasadena, CA 91030.
We must assure that the Council persons and Community Redevelopment Commission understand that there is support for the continued existence of this unique theater.
Or Phone the Message Center:
(626) 403-7218
(Voice Mail for Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Councilmembers)
Community Redevelopment Commission
7:00 p.m. meetings
2nd Wednesday of each month
City council Chambers • 1424 Mission Street
South Pasadena CA, 91030
Moi