Thanks so much for the photo! It is a beautiful building and I hope Yauco can find the funds to restore this beauty. Unfortunately, Puerto Rico, like most governments, is having a tough time financially and it is a tough sell to find money for a project like this. let’s just hope the building is at least stable and can hold on until better times. Luckily, Yauco is a very sleepy town, so the odds are good that it will last.
Thanks Brucec for the list of which Disney shows recouped and which didn’t. What is interesting is is that the shows that recouped are the best shows that Disney has produced. I loved Lion King and Aida, really liked Beauty and the Beast and enjoyed Mary Poppins. But I refused to see the other four on Broadway. I happened to see Chitty in London and it is among the worst things I have ever seen on the professional stage. I couldn’t believe they actually brought it to Broadway. They deserved to lose their shirts on that one. Tarzan and Shrek were terribly reviewed and Mermaid was tepid to mixed. Dumbo is intriguing to me as it has some beautiful songs and has a truly wonderful story. If they can pull it off it can be a winner.
Thanks Howard for your thoughtful comments. As I stated earlier, I am reserving my final judgement until I see the finished product, but I do believe that it might be New York’s most spectacular theater once it is fully restored; especially if they are able to restore the Blade outside.
Despite its tremendous loss of spectacular theaters (The Roxy, the Center, The Capitol, Loews East 72nd, to name but a select few) New York retains, in my opinion, the worlds greatest collection of Single Screen movie theaters in the world: The New Amsterdam, The Hollywood, Radio City, All Five Loew’s Wonder Theaters, The Apollo, The Beacon, The St. George, Loew’s Canal, Loew’s Metropolitan, The Elmwood, The Jackson, Brooklyn Paramount, The Ziegfeld, The Paris, The Ridgewood, Loew’s Shore, RKO Keiths Richmond Hill, RKO Keiths Flushing, The Jackson, The Staten Island Paramount, The Stanley (Yes it’s Jersey City but I still count it), The Empire, and I know that I probably missed several more.
The restoration of The Kings will be an incredible addition to the stature of New York’s remaining palaces. Sadly, most other cities have struggled to retain one of two of their original palaces. It looks like the effort to save those are are still remaining in New York is starting to pick up steam with the landmarking of The Ridgewood and plans underway to landmark the Jackson, Loews Shore and Loews Canal in the coming months. I’m confident that the Brooklyn Paramount will also be restored now that LIU no longer needs the space for its athletic facilty. It’s an exciting time!
I forgot to add The Apollo and The Beacon as performing arts centers. Also, While Loews Jersey does indeed continue to show movies, they also have live concerts, shows and even wedding receptions in their beautiful lobby. The only single screen movie theaters to survive in Manhattan are the Ziegfeld and The Paris; The Ziegfeld has a long term cheap lease on the theater and The Paris is owned by a billionaire who presumably loves keeping The Paris as a cherished part of New York theater history.
Thanks Cwalczak for posting the picture anew. It shows just how spectacular Loews Pitkin was. Unfortunately, you can only save so many theaters. None of the old palaces have survived to this day showing films. They have had to find other uses: Churches (Loews Metropolitan, Loews Valencia, Loews 175th Street, Loews Gates, The Elmwood, The Hollywood and The Stanley to name a few. Some reverted to live theater; most spectacularly among them The New Amsterdam. Some became performing arts centers like Radio City, Loews Paradise and The St. George and soon the Loews Kings.
Sadly, others have been converted to Retail while wiping out most of the original architectural details (many examples) and even a gymnasium (The Brooklyn Paramount). The RKO Keiths Richmond Hill is virtually intact and remarkably survives as a flea market! The Loews Pitkin, though among the most beautiful theaters ever built in the city, is simply too far gone to restore to almost anything and is located in an area that just wouldn’t support a use that has been successful elsewhere. There are other theaters that are better to focus on: The RKO Keiths Flushing, The Ridgewood, The Jackson and the Loews Cana and The Brooklyn Paramount! We need to focus on those with the best chances to survive and, sadly, the Loews Pitkin is not in that category.
Money talks! The Christian thing to do would be to use all of the newfound money for programs to help the needy. Isn’t that what they “say” they are supposed to do after all? Times have changed and 41st Street in 2010 is NOT 41st Street in 1990! It is practically a paradise now compared to those dark days.
Anyway, it’s just an idea that I had and I still think it’s a very good one. What’s the Nederlander’s office number anyway? :–)
I thought of that, but they could keep their offices at the old location. It’s not far. I doubt that they fill all of their seats, and if they do then they should have multiple services just like most of the churches do now. Think of all the poor they could help with the millions they could get by trading their theater?
Yes, I am aware of that planned theater as well. It will probably happen when the office building is eventually built and I believe the Shuberts would be the operator.
Here is what I would love to see: The Nederlanders should offer to trade the Nederlander theatre on 41st Street for the Mark Hellinger/Hollywood Theatre plus a wad of cash. This should be much cheaper than building a theater from scratch. The church gets a newly renovated theater to call home and Broadway gets one of its greatest theaters back in public hands. The church would also have a nice endowment or would be able to fund public works for the poor which should be what they should be focussing on. That would be the christian thing to do.
Brucec, thanks for your comments. Very informative and interesting. I believe there is a new theater going into the base of Related’s new tower on the Southeast corner of 42nd and 10th, but I believe it will not be big enough to be a Broadway house.
Wow! Absolutely incredible. It has been shown over and over again that older cities that have been reborn are the ones that make the most creative use of their older historic and architecturally significant buildings. No one will EVER build theaters of this size and quality ever again. Once they are gone, they are gone forever. It is incredibly short sided for them to lose this theater. What a shame.
Agreed Peter K! I would be very pleased to have the Ridgewood back as a functioning movie theater as, at the time of its closing, the theater with the longest amount of time that it actually showed movies. That in itself is quite historic. Panzer65 also makes an excellent point. This theater is so old that it truly was one of the first of its kind and it wouldn’t contain all of the flourishes that came to symbolize the theaters of the roaring 20’s, escapist 30’s and art deco 40’s. It is why it was so important that the exterior, which is quite handsome, be designated as a landmark. It is more because of its historical significance than to its actual architecture.
I’m pretty sure I saw these photos posted previously, but nonetheless, it is nice to have them reposted. That said, and I don’t want to be seen as negative, but from what I have seen in photos and have read, this theater interior just doesn’t begin to compare to the other true palaces of New York. The New Amsterdam, Hollywood, Radio City, all five of the Loews Wonder Theaters, The St. George, The Elmwood, The Brooklyn Paramount, The Loews Coney Island (Shore Theater), The Ziegfeld, Beacon, The Jackson, RKO Keiths Richmond Hill and the newly “discovered” diamond in the rough, The Loews Canal. These are all spectacular architectural triumphs. The interior of the Ridgewood, sadly, is ho hum at best. There are no photos of the interior from back in its prime, but I just don’t see how this theater is in the same league as the ones I just mentioned.
I do believe that the exterior should have been landmarked and I am happy that that has happened, but so many of the theaters above lack interior designations.
The Ridgewood absolutely is historic and I don’t take that away from it, but architecturally speaking, it just doesn’t measure up.
The right theater is very important, but what constitutes “right” is the issue. Right usually means size of the theater; especially for a big budget musical because they can get the most revenue. That is why the Gershwin, the Winter Garden, the Hilton, The Marquis and the Richard Rodgers are usually booked solid. They are among the biggest on Broadway. For a play, a smaller house is usually better because the rent is less and plays generally rent for less money. If you believe in curses however, you would stay away from the Belasco and The Lyceum, both of which have a history of failures. I’ve only been to the Belasco once, because there is never anything playing that I want to see.
Hi Al, We were talking Broadway theaters, NOT movie theaters. Big difference. Many times I have decided to see a film at a theater other than the one closest to me because I preferred a better theater or a better location. That option does not exist with a live production which is why your argument doesn’t work. I can’t decide I want to see “In The Heights” at The New Amsterdam. But I can decide I want to see Avatar at the huge IMAX screen at Loews Lincoln Square and not at the puny IMAX at the Empire 25.
I don’t know of anyone that decides to see a play or a musical on the basis of the theater it is playing in.
Regarding Hair, another poor argument. Hair has recouped its investment and has been a huge success. The reason it may be down in receipts is because they moved all of their original cast stars to London for the opening of the production there and they have a totally new cast. Again, it has nothing to do with location.
If you read the article that I referenced in last week’s NY Times, even they note that it has not been proven that the location of the theater has any noticeable effect on receipts which is why all of the theaters are in demand and not just those on 45th Street.
I think we still have the Ziegfeld
Hi Saps, yes it is true that the Belasco and the Lyceum specifically have had a tough time over the years getting a hit, especially the Lyceum, but its location is not the problem. The Lyceum is small and a pretty small house. I’m not saying that some theaters are not more successful than others, just that the location in and of itself is not the primary or even an statistically important reason.
There are some theaters I don’t care for, say the Gershwin and the Marquis, but they have booked many a show over the years that I have loved and therefore I have been many times. That’s my point.
It makes me VERY happy when I get to go see a show that I want to see AND it is in a theater I love like the New Amsterdam, The Cort, The Lyceum, The Hilton, The Richard Rogers, The Hirshfeld and The Music Box!
In all my years of theater going (almost 35 years) I have NEVER not gone to see a show because of a theater location. It is ridiculous to think that anyone would. If those people exist it would be an insignificant number. Unlike Marcus Loew who famously “sold tickets to theaters, not movies” that is not the case on Broadway. The show must be good enough or have the marketing good enough to succeed on its own. Just because a show is good doesn’t mean it will succeed. The theater location has virtually nothing to do with it. I personally have no desire to see Million Dollar Quartet, though, ironically I do want to see the theater restoration results.
I will qualify my statement somewhat……Way back when, in the 70’s and 80’s I might have though twice about the Nederlander because it was on the worst block in Manhattan, but certainly not in the clean and safe reality of today.
Al should read the article in this week’s NY Times about how all of the Broadway houses are booked solid, but specifically, how desirable the Hilton Theater is on 42nd St. The delayed Spiderman musical is holding on to it and paying rent until the show is ready rather than risk letting this prime house go. Proof positive that Al was dead wrong in his assessment.
Great post Brucec! I was on the tours of the theater in 2007 and again in 2008 as the city opened the theater to potential investors. I agree, that even in its faded state, the Kings simply took my breath away. I will reserve judgement as to whether it will be the most “spectacular” of New York’s renovated theaters. there is some excellent competition (I am happy to say) The New Amsterdam and Radio City Music Hall are without equal though very different in stule from one another. I have not yet seen the Loews 175th Street, but from the pictures that I’ve seen it too would be in the running. I can’t wait to see the end result, and who knows, we may indeed see that the most spectacular movie palace in New York is actually in Brooklyn!
Technically, the “renovation” is already underway. The team is poring over old photos, plans, etc. to determine how the theater looked when it opened and determining the best ways to restore the damage that has been done. The physical work will probably not start for a while. That said, It IS happening and it is incredibly exciting.
Hey brucec, I responded to your comment on The New Amsterdam page before seeing your comment here. We’re totally on the same page!
It all boils down to money. While I do think that a single screen theater would do well on 42nd Street the problem is the amount of money it would cost to restore the theater and bring it up to today’s standards. If you have to pay that money back, the economics of a movie theater doesn’t work. They would need to rely on grants, tax incentives and even sweat equity (as the Loews Jersey has successfully done) to bring this theater back to its original purpose, but I doubt the city would go along with this right now.
They’ve done their theater good deed of the decade with the generous subsidy of the Loews Kings restoration in Brooklyn. If the city were ready to subsidize a second theater, I would actually prefer that it go to the resoration of the Loews Canal which I think is a spectacular gem that has been hiding in plain site for decades and was a true palace by every definition of the word; certainly better than the Times Square.
Well, not to show movies, but yes many have been spared: Radio City, The New Amsterdam, The Beacon, Loews 175th, The Apollo, The (New) Ziegfeld, The Paris, the Hollywood. I would love to have ONE old theater dedicated to just showing films. Technically, we do have one, at the Loews Jersey which is celebrating 10 years of showing films and has made incredible progress with its greas roots restoration. Nonetheless, Manhattan should have one as well.
Why not the Times Square Theater (Currently available for rent as a retail space)? The Liberty theater (currently cocooned inside the Hilton hotel on 42nd St? Well the Liberty probably has access issues, but it it would be nice to have one single screen theater on 42nd St and the only one who could fit that bill is The Times Square.
One could argue that the Miller’s greatest success was serving as two of New York’s most renowned discos: Xenon and Shout for many years!
Thanks so much for the photo! It is a beautiful building and I hope Yauco can find the funds to restore this beauty. Unfortunately, Puerto Rico, like most governments, is having a tough time financially and it is a tough sell to find money for a project like this. let’s just hope the building is at least stable and can hold on until better times. Luckily, Yauco is a very sleepy town, so the odds are good that it will last.
registering
Thanks Brucec for the list of which Disney shows recouped and which didn’t. What is interesting is is that the shows that recouped are the best shows that Disney has produced. I loved Lion King and Aida, really liked Beauty and the Beast and enjoyed Mary Poppins. But I refused to see the other four on Broadway. I happened to see Chitty in London and it is among the worst things I have ever seen on the professional stage. I couldn’t believe they actually brought it to Broadway. They deserved to lose their shirts on that one. Tarzan and Shrek were terribly reviewed and Mermaid was tepid to mixed. Dumbo is intriguing to me as it has some beautiful songs and has a truly wonderful story. If they can pull it off it can be a winner.
Thanks Howard for your thoughtful comments. As I stated earlier, I am reserving my final judgement until I see the finished product, but I do believe that it might be New York’s most spectacular theater once it is fully restored; especially if they are able to restore the Blade outside.
Despite its tremendous loss of spectacular theaters (The Roxy, the Center, The Capitol, Loews East 72nd, to name but a select few) New York retains, in my opinion, the worlds greatest collection of Single Screen movie theaters in the world: The New Amsterdam, The Hollywood, Radio City, All Five Loew’s Wonder Theaters, The Apollo, The Beacon, The St. George, Loew’s Canal, Loew’s Metropolitan, The Elmwood, The Jackson, Brooklyn Paramount, The Ziegfeld, The Paris, The Ridgewood, Loew’s Shore, RKO Keiths Richmond Hill, RKO Keiths Flushing, The Jackson, The Staten Island Paramount, The Stanley (Yes it’s Jersey City but I still count it), The Empire, and I know that I probably missed several more.
The restoration of The Kings will be an incredible addition to the stature of New York’s remaining palaces. Sadly, most other cities have struggled to retain one of two of their original palaces. It looks like the effort to save those are are still remaining in New York is starting to pick up steam with the landmarking of The Ridgewood and plans underway to landmark the Jackson, Loews Shore and Loews Canal in the coming months. I’m confident that the Brooklyn Paramount will also be restored now that LIU no longer needs the space for its athletic facilty. It’s an exciting time!
I forgot to add The Apollo and The Beacon as performing arts centers. Also, While Loews Jersey does indeed continue to show movies, they also have live concerts, shows and even wedding receptions in their beautiful lobby. The only single screen movie theaters to survive in Manhattan are the Ziegfeld and The Paris; The Ziegfeld has a long term cheap lease on the theater and The Paris is owned by a billionaire who presumably loves keeping The Paris as a cherished part of New York theater history.
Thanks Cwalczak for posting the picture anew. It shows just how spectacular Loews Pitkin was. Unfortunately, you can only save so many theaters. None of the old palaces have survived to this day showing films. They have had to find other uses: Churches (Loews Metropolitan, Loews Valencia, Loews 175th Street, Loews Gates, The Elmwood, The Hollywood and The Stanley to name a few. Some reverted to live theater; most spectacularly among them The New Amsterdam. Some became performing arts centers like Radio City, Loews Paradise and The St. George and soon the Loews Kings.
Sadly, others have been converted to Retail while wiping out most of the original architectural details (many examples) and even a gymnasium (The Brooklyn Paramount). The RKO Keiths Richmond Hill is virtually intact and remarkably survives as a flea market! The Loews Pitkin, though among the most beautiful theaters ever built in the city, is simply too far gone to restore to almost anything and is located in an area that just wouldn’t support a use that has been successful elsewhere. There are other theaters that are better to focus on: The RKO Keiths Flushing, The Ridgewood, The Jackson and the Loews Cana and The Brooklyn Paramount! We need to focus on those with the best chances to survive and, sadly, the Loews Pitkin is not in that category.
registering
Another thing that we both agree on!!!!!!! LOL!!!
Money talks! The Christian thing to do would be to use all of the newfound money for programs to help the needy. Isn’t that what they “say” they are supposed to do after all? Times have changed and 41st Street in 2010 is NOT 41st Street in 1990! It is practically a paradise now compared to those dark days.
Anyway, it’s just an idea that I had and I still think it’s a very good one. What’s the Nederlander’s office number anyway? :–)
I thought of that, but they could keep their offices at the old location. It’s not far. I doubt that they fill all of their seats, and if they do then they should have multiple services just like most of the churches do now. Think of all the poor they could help with the millions they could get by trading their theater?
Yes, I am aware of that planned theater as well. It will probably happen when the office building is eventually built and I believe the Shuberts would be the operator.
Here is what I would love to see: The Nederlanders should offer to trade the Nederlander theatre on 41st Street for the Mark Hellinger/Hollywood Theatre plus a wad of cash. This should be much cheaper than building a theater from scratch. The church gets a newly renovated theater to call home and Broadway gets one of its greatest theaters back in public hands. The church would also have a nice endowment or would be able to fund public works for the poor which should be what they should be focussing on. That would be the christian thing to do.
Brucec, thanks for your comments. Very informative and interesting. I believe there is a new theater going into the base of Related’s new tower on the Southeast corner of 42nd and 10th, but I believe it will not be big enough to be a Broadway house.
Wow! Absolutely incredible. It has been shown over and over again that older cities that have been reborn are the ones that make the most creative use of their older historic and architecturally significant buildings. No one will EVER build theaters of this size and quality ever again. Once they are gone, they are gone forever. It is incredibly short sided for them to lose this theater. What a shame.
What is the latest with this theater? Is it being demolished or “incorporated” into a new school?
Agreed Peter K! I would be very pleased to have the Ridgewood back as a functioning movie theater as, at the time of its closing, the theater with the longest amount of time that it actually showed movies. That in itself is quite historic. Panzer65 also makes an excellent point. This theater is so old that it truly was one of the first of its kind and it wouldn’t contain all of the flourishes that came to symbolize the theaters of the roaring 20’s, escapist 30’s and art deco 40’s. It is why it was so important that the exterior, which is quite handsome, be designated as a landmark. It is more because of its historical significance than to its actual architecture.
I’m pretty sure I saw these photos posted previously, but nonetheless, it is nice to have them reposted. That said, and I don’t want to be seen as negative, but from what I have seen in photos and have read, this theater interior just doesn’t begin to compare to the other true palaces of New York. The New Amsterdam, Hollywood, Radio City, all five of the Loews Wonder Theaters, The St. George, The Elmwood, The Brooklyn Paramount, The Loews Coney Island (Shore Theater), The Ziegfeld, Beacon, The Jackson, RKO Keiths Richmond Hill and the newly “discovered” diamond in the rough, The Loews Canal. These are all spectacular architectural triumphs. The interior of the Ridgewood, sadly, is ho hum at best. There are no photos of the interior from back in its prime, but I just don’t see how this theater is in the same league as the ones I just mentioned.
I do believe that the exterior should have been landmarked and I am happy that that has happened, but so many of the theaters above lack interior designations.
The Ridgewood absolutely is historic and I don’t take that away from it, but architecturally speaking, it just doesn’t measure up.
Yes Al, we’re getting closer and closer! :–)
The right theater is very important, but what constitutes “right” is the issue. Right usually means size of the theater; especially for a big budget musical because they can get the most revenue. That is why the Gershwin, the Winter Garden, the Hilton, The Marquis and the Richard Rodgers are usually booked solid. They are among the biggest on Broadway. For a play, a smaller house is usually better because the rent is less and plays generally rent for less money. If you believe in curses however, you would stay away from the Belasco and The Lyceum, both of which have a history of failures. I’ve only been to the Belasco once, because there is never anything playing that I want to see.
Al, we’re not as far apart as we thought.
Hi Al, We were talking Broadway theaters, NOT movie theaters. Big difference. Many times I have decided to see a film at a theater other than the one closest to me because I preferred a better theater or a better location. That option does not exist with a live production which is why your argument doesn’t work. I can’t decide I want to see “In The Heights” at The New Amsterdam. But I can decide I want to see Avatar at the huge IMAX screen at Loews Lincoln Square and not at the puny IMAX at the Empire 25.
I don’t know of anyone that decides to see a play or a musical on the basis of the theater it is playing in.
Regarding Hair, another poor argument. Hair has recouped its investment and has been a huge success. The reason it may be down in receipts is because they moved all of their original cast stars to London for the opening of the production there and they have a totally new cast. Again, it has nothing to do with location.
If you read the article that I referenced in last week’s NY Times, even they note that it has not been proven that the location of the theater has any noticeable effect on receipts which is why all of the theaters are in demand and not just those on 45th Street.
I think we still have the Ziegfeld
Hi Saps, yes it is true that the Belasco and the Lyceum specifically have had a tough time over the years getting a hit, especially the Lyceum, but its location is not the problem. The Lyceum is small and a pretty small house. I’m not saying that some theaters are not more successful than others, just that the location in and of itself is not the primary or even an statistically important reason.
There are some theaters I don’t care for, say the Gershwin and the Marquis, but they have booked many a show over the years that I have loved and therefore I have been many times. That’s my point.
It makes me VERY happy when I get to go see a show that I want to see AND it is in a theater I love like the New Amsterdam, The Cort, The Lyceum, The Hilton, The Richard Rogers, The Hirshfeld and The Music Box!
In all my years of theater going (almost 35 years) I have NEVER not gone to see a show because of a theater location. It is ridiculous to think that anyone would. If those people exist it would be an insignificant number. Unlike Marcus Loew who famously “sold tickets to theaters, not movies” that is not the case on Broadway. The show must be good enough or have the marketing good enough to succeed on its own. Just because a show is good doesn’t mean it will succeed. The theater location has virtually nothing to do with it. I personally have no desire to see Million Dollar Quartet, though, ironically I do want to see the theater restoration results.
I will qualify my statement somewhat……Way back when, in the 70’s and 80’s I might have though twice about the Nederlander because it was on the worst block in Manhattan, but certainly not in the clean and safe reality of today.
Al should read the article in this week’s NY Times about how all of the Broadway houses are booked solid, but specifically, how desirable the Hilton Theater is on 42nd St. The delayed Spiderman musical is holding on to it and paying rent until the show is ready rather than risk letting this prime house go. Proof positive that Al was dead wrong in his assessment.
Great post Brucec! I was on the tours of the theater in 2007 and again in 2008 as the city opened the theater to potential investors. I agree, that even in its faded state, the Kings simply took my breath away. I will reserve judgement as to whether it will be the most “spectacular” of New York’s renovated theaters. there is some excellent competition (I am happy to say) The New Amsterdam and Radio City Music Hall are without equal though very different in stule from one another. I have not yet seen the Loews 175th Street, but from the pictures that I’ve seen it too would be in the running. I can’t wait to see the end result, and who knows, we may indeed see that the most spectacular movie palace in New York is actually in Brooklyn!
Technically, the “renovation” is already underway. The team is poring over old photos, plans, etc. to determine how the theater looked when it opened and determining the best ways to restore the damage that has been done. The physical work will probably not start for a while. That said, It IS happening and it is incredibly exciting.
Hey brucec, I responded to your comment on The New Amsterdam page before seeing your comment here. We’re totally on the same page!
It all boils down to money. While I do think that a single screen theater would do well on 42nd Street the problem is the amount of money it would cost to restore the theater and bring it up to today’s standards. If you have to pay that money back, the economics of a movie theater doesn’t work. They would need to rely on grants, tax incentives and even sweat equity (as the Loews Jersey has successfully done) to bring this theater back to its original purpose, but I doubt the city would go along with this right now.
They’ve done their theater good deed of the decade with the generous subsidy of the Loews Kings restoration in Brooklyn. If the city were ready to subsidize a second theater, I would actually prefer that it go to the resoration of the Loews Canal which I think is a spectacular gem that has been hiding in plain site for decades and was a true palace by every definition of the word; certainly better than the Times Square.
Well, not to show movies, but yes many have been spared: Radio City, The New Amsterdam, The Beacon, Loews 175th, The Apollo, The (New) Ziegfeld, The Paris, the Hollywood. I would love to have ONE old theater dedicated to just showing films. Technically, we do have one, at the Loews Jersey which is celebrating 10 years of showing films and has made incredible progress with its greas roots restoration. Nonetheless, Manhattan should have one as well.
Why not the Times Square Theater (Currently available for rent as a retail space)? The Liberty theater (currently cocooned inside the Hilton hotel on 42nd St? Well the Liberty probably has access issues, but it it would be nice to have one single screen theater on 42nd St and the only one who could fit that bill is The Times Square.