First, a correction. The campaign to save the Majestic – and all that followed – began in 1987, not 1986.
From my understanding of the situation, when the Paxton Majestic Theatre Group (PMTG) left the building last year, the disagreement was mutual.
When the PMTG started up in 1987, I think the original rent was to be $400/month â€" plus, after the first year, a percentage of profits. According to The Paxton Record, the rent in November 2006 – a full nineteen years later – was $450.00, a whopping increase of $50.00! Whether the PMTG has ever shown a profit or been obligated to the percentage, this I don’t know.
The rent didn’t cover heating costs, let alone operating expenses, but the landlord offered to REDUCE the amount to $300.00 â€" provided PMTG pick up the tab for utilities and half the water. Apparently the building owner had been paying the theater’s heating and electric all along. In itself, the cost of lighting a production can be considerable. It’s entirely foreign to my experience that the producing organization wouldn’t, one way or another, be responsible for the expenses it incurs in the normal course of business.
It’s not my intent to defend either side here, but it’s unreasonable to expect first-rate services when the facility operates at a loss every month it’s open. No doubt both parties were intent on a compromise that just wasn’t going to happen.
Keep in mind, PMTG was the exclusive tenant in the space, mounting something like four productions a year, each running a maximum of two weeks. Counting tech and dress, the theater’s still dark an astounding 325 nights of the year.
Demographics have changed quite a bit since 1987, not to mention streetscape and attitudes. The original plan would have to be reconsidered and revised, something I might consider doing – if the space was available, if funding looked possible, if enough people were (seriously) interested.
First, a correction. The campaign to save the Majestic – and all that followed – began in 1987, not 1986.
From my understanding of the situation, when the Paxton Majestic Theatre Group (PMTG) left the building last year, the disagreement was mutual.
When the PMTG started up in 1987, I think the original rent was to be $400/month â€" plus, after the first year, a percentage of profits. According to The Paxton Record, the rent in November 2006 – a full nineteen years later – was $450.00, a whopping increase of $50.00! Whether the PMTG has ever shown a profit or been obligated to the percentage, this I don’t know.
The rent didn’t cover heating costs, let alone operating expenses, but the landlord offered to REDUCE the amount to $300.00 â€" provided PMTG pick up the tab for utilities and half the water. Apparently the building owner had been paying the theater’s heating and electric all along. In itself, the cost of lighting a production can be considerable. It’s entirely foreign to my experience that the producing organization wouldn’t, one way or another, be responsible for the expenses it incurs in the normal course of business.
It’s not my intent to defend either side here, but it’s unreasonable to expect first-rate services when the facility operates at a loss every month it’s open. No doubt both parties were intent on a compromise that just wasn’t going to happen.
Keep in mind, PMTG was the exclusive tenant in the space, mounting something like four productions a year, each running a maximum of two weeks. Counting tech and dress, the theater’s still dark an astounding 325 nights of the year.
Demographics have changed quite a bit since 1987, not to mention streetscape and attitudes. The original plan would have to be reconsidered and revised, something I might consider doing – if the space was available, if funding looked possible, if enough people were (seriously) interested.
I will write quickly there’s no reason to disagree regarding “nothing to save” – what I meant was there’s nothing to save the building FROM, i.e., there’ve so far been no threats to raze the building nor convert it to apartments (as there had been in 1986). Definitely the building and its potential are worth saving !
In 1986 there was considerable support to “save the Majestic”. At the time, the owner was considering plans to level the house floor and convert the theater to apartment space.
There was a plan in place to nurture the Majestic into a regional center for the performing arts (this was several years before the Virginia converted to a mixed-performance venue in Champaign). In any case, a board of directors was elected, the plan was ignored, and amateurs were put in charge.
If that plan had been followed as written, the theater group would have been able to buy the building by 1991 and it wouldn’t be sitting empty today.
Ironic that the “Paxton Majestic Theater Group” was actually founded for the sole purpose of saving the theater it no longer occupies.
At present, there seems to be no threat to the building or its design. It’s merely empty and for sale – there’s nothing to “save”.
And with nothing at stake, stirring community support for another campaign simply to reopen the theater would be difficult. There are several other options, each presenting more obstacles than the other. The most obvious, of course, is to buy or lease the building, go it alone, and hope for the best.
As listed by Lenington Realty, the building’s description is a little misleading in “easy to rent and never vacant” -â€" the theater space, which is most of the property, has been sitting vacant and unused since 20 November 2005.
Judging by Paxton’s website, a hefty percentage of their downtown seems to be up for sale this week.
The current asking price for the Majestic is $150,000. But the house is missing over 130 vintage seats, there are no projectors, what remained of the screen was ripped out in pieces back in 1985 and the stage, orchestra pit and acoustics have been severely if not irreperably compromised thanks to “improvements” made by the amateur-theater company that had been renting the space. It would take substantial funding to repair their damage.
Not far to Paxton is a similar property, but the theatre is still intact and operating. This was on the market last year, also listed at $150,000 for the building as well as the established business. Even then, to quote one realtor, “I think the owner knows the price is absurd, is just putting it out there to see what happens”. It hasn’t sold, either ; as far as I know, there’ve been no offers.
In 1996, the Majestic was on the market for $50,000. At that time, the highest appraisal any of three banks and an independent profi would give it was $40,000. This was offered and rejected and a firm offer was made for $45,000 -â€" the then owner countered by raising the price to $55,000.
From a realtor’s perspective, no doubt the property is worth exactly as much as someone is willing to pay for it. One hopes a new owner would be investing for better reasons than personal gain.
Truly a shame what’s happened to the Paxton Theatre,it was an impeccable venue for film and live performance. Still, with some vision and a modicum of imagination, the space could easily be a profitable asset to the community at large, a serious focal point for the business district.
Mr. Majestic, I have what could be positive theatre news, but no word from you. nachtschreiber at yahoo.com
If you want to discuss further, e-mail to nachtschreiber at yahoo.com
First, a correction. The campaign to save the Majestic – and all that followed – began in 1987, not 1986.
From my understanding of the situation, when the Paxton Majestic Theatre Group (PMTG) left the building last year, the disagreement was mutual.
When the PMTG started up in 1987, I think the original rent was to be $400/month â€" plus, after the first year, a percentage of profits. According to The Paxton Record, the rent in November 2006 – a full nineteen years later – was $450.00, a whopping increase of $50.00! Whether the PMTG has ever shown a profit or been obligated to the percentage, this I don’t know.
The rent didn’t cover heating costs, let alone operating expenses, but the landlord offered to REDUCE the amount to $300.00 â€" provided PMTG pick up the tab for utilities and half the water. Apparently the building owner had been paying the theater’s heating and electric all along. In itself, the cost of lighting a production can be considerable. It’s entirely foreign to my experience that the producing organization wouldn’t, one way or another, be responsible for the expenses it incurs in the normal course of business.
It’s not my intent to defend either side here, but it’s unreasonable to expect first-rate services when the facility operates at a loss every month it’s open. No doubt both parties were intent on a compromise that just wasn’t going to happen.
Keep in mind, PMTG was the exclusive tenant in the space, mounting something like four productions a year, each running a maximum of two weeks. Counting tech and dress, the theater’s still dark an astounding 325 nights of the year.
Demographics have changed quite a bit since 1987, not to mention streetscape and attitudes. The original plan would have to be reconsidered and revised, something I might consider doing – if the space was available, if funding looked possible, if enough people were (seriously) interested.
First, a correction. The campaign to save the Majestic – and all that followed – began in 1987, not 1986.
From my understanding of the situation, when the Paxton Majestic Theatre Group (PMTG) left the building last year, the disagreement was mutual.
When the PMTG started up in 1987, I think the original rent was to be $400/month â€" plus, after the first year, a percentage of profits. According to The Paxton Record, the rent in November 2006 – a full nineteen years later – was $450.00, a whopping increase of $50.00! Whether the PMTG has ever shown a profit or been obligated to the percentage, this I don’t know.
The rent didn’t cover heating costs, let alone operating expenses, but the landlord offered to REDUCE the amount to $300.00 â€" provided PMTG pick up the tab for utilities and half the water. Apparently the building owner had been paying the theater’s heating and electric all along. In itself, the cost of lighting a production can be considerable. It’s entirely foreign to my experience that the producing organization wouldn’t, one way or another, be responsible for the expenses it incurs in the normal course of business.
It’s not my intent to defend either side here, but it’s unreasonable to expect first-rate services when the facility operates at a loss every month it’s open. No doubt both parties were intent on a compromise that just wasn’t going to happen.
Keep in mind, PMTG was the exclusive tenant in the space, mounting something like four productions a year, each running a maximum of two weeks. Counting tech and dress, the theater’s still dark an astounding 325 nights of the year.
Demographics have changed quite a bit since 1987, not to mention streetscape and attitudes. The original plan would have to be reconsidered and revised, something I might consider doing – if the space was available, if funding looked possible, if enough people were (seriously) interested.
I will write quickly there’s no reason to disagree regarding “nothing to save” – what I meant was there’s nothing to save the building FROM, i.e., there’ve so far been no threats to raze the building nor convert it to apartments (as there had been in 1986). Definitely the building and its potential are worth saving !
In 1986 there was considerable support to “save the Majestic”. At the time, the owner was considering plans to level the house floor and convert the theater to apartment space.
There was a plan in place to nurture the Majestic into a regional center for the performing arts (this was several years before the Virginia converted to a mixed-performance venue in Champaign). In any case, a board of directors was elected, the plan was ignored, and amateurs were put in charge.
If that plan had been followed as written, the theater group would have been able to buy the building by 1991 and it wouldn’t be sitting empty today.
Ironic that the “Paxton Majestic Theater Group” was actually founded for the sole purpose of saving the theater it no longer occupies.
At present, there seems to be no threat to the building or its design. It’s merely empty and for sale – there’s nothing to “save”.
And with nothing at stake, stirring community support for another campaign simply to reopen the theater would be difficult. There are several other options, each presenting more obstacles than the other. The most obvious, of course, is to buy or lease the building, go it alone, and hope for the best.
Does anyone know the current status of this theatre ?
As listed by Lenington Realty, the building’s description is a little misleading in “easy to rent and never vacant” -â€" the theater space, which is most of the property, has been sitting vacant and unused since 20 November 2005.
Judging by Paxton’s website, a hefty percentage of their downtown seems to be up for sale this week.
The current asking price for the Majestic is $150,000. But the house is missing over 130 vintage seats, there are no projectors, what remained of the screen was ripped out in pieces back in 1985 and the stage, orchestra pit and acoustics have been severely if not irreperably compromised thanks to “improvements” made by the amateur-theater company that had been renting the space. It would take substantial funding to repair their damage.
Not far to Paxton is a similar property, but the theatre is still intact and operating. This was on the market last year, also listed at $150,000 for the building as well as the established business. Even then, to quote one realtor, “I think the owner knows the price is absurd, is just putting it out there to see what happens”. It hasn’t sold, either ; as far as I know, there’ve been no offers.
In 1996, the Majestic was on the market for $50,000. At that time, the highest appraisal any of three banks and an independent profi would give it was $40,000. This was offered and rejected and a firm offer was made for $45,000 -â€" the then owner countered by raising the price to $55,000.
From a realtor’s perspective, no doubt the property is worth exactly as much as someone is willing to pay for it. One hopes a new owner would be investing for better reasons than personal gain.
Truly a shame what’s happened to the Paxton Theatre,it was an impeccable venue for film and live performance. Still, with some vision and a modicum of imagination, the space could easily be a profitable asset to the community at large, a serious focal point for the business district.