Recent color photos of this theatre can be found on the site: “America’s Stunning Theatres” by photographer and stagehand Noah Kern at: http://www.pbase.com/affablebeef/theatres Comments and information may be left there without registration; such can be public view or only to Mr. Kern. Scroll down the page to find the name, and then click on the sample image above it to be taken to the page of photos of it.
Recent color photos of this theatre can be found on the site: “America’s Stunning Theatres” by photographer and stagehand Noah Kern at: http://www.pbase.com/affablebeef/theatres Comments and information may be left there without registration; such can be public view or only to Mr. Kern. Scroll down the page to find the name, and then click on the sample image above it to be taken to the page of photos of it.
I’m afraid that HOORAY FOR HOLLYWOOD would only make one think that yours was another cinephile pic, rather than about the theatre itself. The Brooklyn song I have never heard.
This news item may not be pleasant to read, but at least we might possibly have hope that our venerable Riverside Theatre might still be with us for some time to come: View link
Now, who would have thought that a tax-supported and much larger facility would take away a large amount of the buiness that our local theatres had survived upon? Yeah, who??? ;) Well, maybe, just maybe there is a bright side to all this IF the new management will be more sympathetic to letting Dairyland Theatre Organ Society back in to bring that Wurli alive again for the public. We can only hope.
Don K.’s discussion is right on the nose, and it will be intersting to see what developes now that big business virtually ‘owns’ the govenment. Much more discussion about his is in the FORMUS of the site: www.bigscreenbiz.com
Dear Mr. Miano, you have a wonderful memory there and it is generous of you to share it with those of us who can only imagine how great and unforgetable is must have been to stare out from that stage into that imensity of applauding people in that magnificent place! May you have many more years there and perhaps another evening of that filled-house magic. From one theatre devotee to another: BRAVO!
IF no one responds to your question about the “suits of armor” you might possibly find the data at the Theatre Historical Soc. just outside of Chicago in Elmhurst. Contact them through their Ex. Director, Rich Sklenar at www.historictheatres.org Their man Joe DuciBella is their resident expert on the CHICAGO and may well be able to help.
The Coronado’s new book is very colorful, but it would have been the greater had it had some of the interior details shots shown on this photographer’s site: http://www.pbase.com/affablebeef/rockford Let’s hope that they remain there for the public to enjoy for years to come!
This announcement appeared on today’s NewsFlash bulletin from the Theatre Historical Society, and it may be of interest to any who have the time and money to attend this League of Historic American Theatres convention, which they call their “Ramble”. These people are the professionals in historic theatre restoration and operation, so valuable information and contacts may be obtained. Perhaps this is just the impetus that the Friends of the Kings needs. If a few of you fellows can attend, perhaps sharing the cost of a hotel room, then you may have a concrete beginning, though I still am of the opinion that the state of the KINGS is such that only a big money investor can bring it to life. I cannot attend, but Best Wishes to any who can.
“Have you made plans yet to come to Kansas City in July for the 29th Annual LHAT Conference and Theatre Tour? > > CREATING A LEGACY: HISTORIC THEATRES IN THE MIDDLE OF IT ALL > > Main Conference: July 20-23, 2005 > Optional Pre-Conference Theatre Ramble: July 19th > > Headquarters Hotel: The Fairmont Kansas City at the Plaza > > > REGISTRATION > > Registration will open soon for the conference, BUT YOU CAN RESERVE YOUR HOTEL ROOM NOW. > > For reservation information, click here: View link The LHAT group rate is available through June 24th. > > > 2005 CONFERENCE BROCHURE > > LHAT members will automatically receive by mail the 2005 conference registration brochure AS SOON as it is available. If you are not an active member or are not sure you are on the LHAT mailing list and would like to receive a brochure, please email us at with your contact information. > > All the details we currently have available about the conference are on our website now: http://www.lhat.org/conference_theatre.asp > > There you will find details about the conference schedule, special and optional events, educational workshops, theatre tours, accommodations, Kansas City and registration fees. > > > WHY IS IT IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO ATTEND? > > We all share a common appreciation for the cultural and architectural heritage that historic theatres represent in our communities. We share the goals of carefully restoring, refitting and effectively operating our theatres. However, our industry is comprised of a diverse group of individuals and organizations that have differing needs at various stages of project maturity. > > Recognizing these realities, our Annual Conference is designed to address those disparate interests. Whether you are: > > – Starting to mobilize a community around a visionary dream > – Just beginning to select an architect, mount a funding campaign, or launch the construction phase > – In the early years of operating, programming and marketing a historic theatre > – Or, a veteran who has been at it for years > > your focus is on sustaining the viability of a historic theatre and on future-driven imperatives. At the LHAT 2005 Conference, there will be invaluable resources and professional development opportunities for everyone! > > Join hundreds of your colleagues from across North America in Kansas City this July. Reconnect with your peers. Enrich your own professional capacity through our respective successes, challenges and fresh ideas. We can all return home with a renewed spirit in the noble cause that each us strives to uphold every day of the year. > > > For questions, further information or if you are unable to access the above links, please contact the LHAT office at or call toll-free (877) 627-0833. > > > > > For more Information call 410-659-9533”
Warren, could you check that photo number again? I couldn’t find the image either by it or by going to the ‘movie theatre’ category. If there were some alpha elements to that photo number that may have been omitted, they apparently are necessary to find the image.
The OnMilwaukee.com web site announced on April 21st, at: View link
that the AVALON has been purchased by a local investor who anticipates returning it to a performance space, though the exact nature of that space is still to be announced. He remarks that there is a lot of work to be done to make the neglected movie palace workable again, so we should not expect to see it open for at least a year. This sounds promising, but one shouldn’t hold his breath with this theatre with no parking space at all. I will contact him as I did the previous owners to help them with restoration ideas such as how to make flameproof shrubbry to replace the long-gone shrubs that originally adorned the horizon line around the sky edge, but I hope that they succeed even if sufficient volunteers are not forthcoming. Let us hope that this new ownership will see many wonderful years to come for this fine atmospheric!
With the announcement in April of 2005 that the AVALON is being purchased by a new owner and will reopen, Mr. Hollis of the ROSEBUD (former TOSA in Wauwatosa) has droped plans for the Bay View location for his new cinema. Instead today’s newspaper says that he will purchse his sister’s cinema, the TIMES. That story will be available for the next four years here: http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/may05/326028.asp
I hope for the success of the new ownership, which will retain Steve Levin as the operator/lessor for the forseeable future, but if ticket sales again slide, I wonder at the probable success of puting in first run there, since only two miles away Mr. Hollis' ROSEBUD already shows first run. Can two first runs succeed that close to each other?
It is highly unlikely that the BROOKLYN PARAMOUNT would be torn down, since Long Island University enjoys using the many offices that front the theatre, a feature that has caused more than one movie palace to enjoy an extended life. If only the KINGS had had such a feature to help it survive in easily restorable condition. No, demolition is not impossible for either, but it would have been nice even for rehab purposes to have rental spaces to gain needed revenue. Is there any space on the land of the KINGS to build at least a small office/residential/commercial building? IF so, then such should also be mentioned prominently in any proposal for the theatre. Modern rehabs usually also want added stage depth and rehersal areas among other new space requirements; does the KINGS' site allow for this? Could an adjacent site be acquired in a package deal to allow for such expansion, a method used with many other rehabed/restored theatres? It is all about making the real estate deal attractive to investors!
A number of “Stepale2"s earlier comments and proposed captions about the ROXY were taken word for word from the late Ben M. Hall’s "The Best Remaining Seats: The Story7 of the Golden Age of the Movie Palace” and I hope that they were fully credited in the proposed book, since they are not so credited here.
TC’s comment about the “bell” is illuminating and I wonder where he found such detail about the installations by Deagon. Lest anyone assume that he is talking about a glockenspiel, the “bell” was a ten thousand pound, 15-foot-high array of tubes which were struck by ‘hammers’ as soleniods with dampers controlled from the organ console! The photo of them on page 88 the late Ben Hall’s landmark book “The Best Remaining Seats: The Story of the Golden Age of the Movie Palace” shows why they were referred to most often as “chimes.” The previous page claims that there were 21 notes to this indoor carillon, but we won’t quibble about the total since it must have been a wondorous sound in any case! I believe that I somewhere read that they were mounted above the ceiling near the stage where a separate division of the organ, called the “Fanfare Organ” was located. I too react with the thought ‘what a waste to demolish such with the theatre’ but it occurs to me: ‘where would one quickly move and install such a massive instrument?!!’ Few buildings are large enought to receive a 15-foot-square, ten thousand pound musical instrument.
You don’t mention if the theatres are actually in Taunton, but if you search by their names plus the location, here and at such sites as www.CinemaTour.com you may find something on-line. You might do best with local sources such as the main library, the local historical societies, the community’s archived records, the state historic preservation officer at the capitol, and reserach in local newspapers' back issues and ‘morgues’ for photos taken at or near opening. By far the largest repository of theatre data/photos in the USA is at the Theatre Historical Society which you can contact via their Ex. Dir. listed on their front page at: www.historictheatres.org Best Wishes.
Some of the above posts imply that today’s theatre designers are bent on creating only a cheap, boring experience, but to be fair, it must be remembered that designers are paid by the multiplex chains, and these are mostly conglomerates which exist by definition for, and only for, profit — as much profit as they can get, either legally or illegally (it doesn’t really matter as long as they can get away with it — and they now OWN the governments, so who is left to prosecute them?); whatever works. Governments and their corts no longer stand in their way, and exhibition is but one business that is now in the control of Big Money.
These types will always seek to eliminate anyone who stands in the way of maximum profit, and that includes the distributors and exhibitors. If they can sell directly to the public, the ‘studios’ get all the profit for themselves, hence my commet at the top. They are only biding their time until a sufficiently secure and reasonably inexpensive means arrives to get the product to the public at the highest profit by eliminating all middle men; when technology soon makes that possible, say goodbye to any theatres not owned by the ‘studios!’ Debating projection or media techniques as we do now, will then be as pointless as debating the preservation worthiness of a building as the bulldozers are rolling up to finish it off. Cinema as we know it will then be only a fond memory. As Aldous Huxley said: “It is a Brave New World.” But do we want to be there?!
There has been a long debate on the www.bigscreenbiz.com site’s LOBBY FORUM about what effect Digital Cinema will have on the independent exhibitor, which the CAMELOT will become. Even if they do install exclusively digital electronic projection, they may not have many years to enjoy any profit from it. The film makers now admit that they make more money via DVDs than film, so the handwriting may be on the wall as regards the eventual end of film and any independents that would show it. With digital having a high price tag for installation and the makers having the ability to determine just which cinemas will get a title, it may not be long before only their own multiplexes will get any title. I forsee Big Business doing away with the restrictions of the Sherman Anti-Trust act which originally separated the studios from the theatres they owned back in 1948, and going back to the profitable model of the studios controlling the exhibition and forcing out any independents. At least in those days, the theaters were better kept up and of higher quality since each studio’s chains were in competition for the movie goer’s money, but I don’t think that will happen again, since the ticket sale revenue is getting so much smaller than the DVD revenue. Like it or not, technology is creating a new marketplace.
Dave Wodeyla will not necessarily get an invoice for a photo from THSA, since if he did not ORDER a photo, it is likely that they will simply send him a xerox of one for him to decide if he wants to pay for a glossy photo.
AS to the asbestos fears, we may all be barking up the wrong tree; while the notice does say a “vintage” fire curtain, it may not be asbestos. Many times the word “steel” is used for a fire curtain term, since many such ‘curtains’ were in fact sheets of lapped steel. It might pay to ask.
Aside from local libraries and historical societies and the morgues of newspapers, your best bet is the Theatre Historical Society of America at www.historictheatres.org and click on their ARCHIVE link for information. An E-mail to their Ex. Dir. Rich Sklenar may be of preliminary help. Best Wishes.
Maybe they just appreciate its scenic/historic value, and are not aware of any hazard involved. Accoreding to the book ENVIRONMENTAL OVERKILL, the type of asbestos used in such is NOT injurious to people. And if it is desireable, its backside could be sprayed with a paint to seal in any fibers.
I sense your pain and frustration, Bruce1; we all want to see it become a beautiful theatre once again, but, no, there are no guarantees, regardless of all the good will and effort you have put in. The reason I mention landmarking that may only preserve the exterior, is that it may likely discourage those who simply want to demolish or gut the interior, because demolition would be prohibited, and gutting or drastically altering the interior would likely entail changes to the facade also for structural reasons. Since this would be expensive to adapt a new interior to existing windows, steel, ornament, etc., a nefarious developer would be daunted by the expense involved since a theatre exterior is nothing like a factory, condos, or offices, for example. Thus your landmarking would not only show the merit of the building in the eyes of the good people who might restore it, but it would dim the appeal of the place in the eyes of those who only want to wreck it.
Theatrat: If you want input from the Jersey, I strongly suggest that you join their group and befriend a MAN at their meetings who seems able to guide you in the process of landmarking or rehabbing as they did the Jersey. The woman in charge may now see herself as too powerful and occupied with other matters to devote time to help you. If you can get a guy interested there, then perhaps he and some buddies will be willing to take a jaunt to Brooklyn to check out the KINGS and see what can be done, but they will likely expect you and
Bruce1 as well as Gustave and others to have met at least once before they will meet with you so that they can know just who they are talking to. If it turns out that more than one individual or group approaches the Friends of the Jersey, they may feel that their time is being wasted by too many unconnected people. You must meet and at least set up an informal group before anyone will take you seriously. I write in advocacy of movie palaces here in Milwaukee, but I have no influence upon local movers and shakers (money men) because I have no group behind me, no official standing. My advice is cheap, but money men want a realistic estimate as to what the return on their investment will be, or if they are independently wealthy, like the millionaire who bought the PABST THEATER here from the city in order to gain historic prestige, then such will buy prestige more than an investment, since theatres RARELY make lots of money and they are EXPENSIVE to keep up. Thus the appeal of the ‘Friends of the KINGS’ must be to money men who (1) adore theatres, or (2) seek a public scale project by which to buy adoration for themelves, though they would never put it that way.
Do you know your big wigs in the area well enough to have an intermidiary approach them? A good place to look is in the Directory of Foundations at the library which will give you their names, if not their addresses. Foundations are started by such men to avoid taxes, and also have a staff to shield the big wig from the many people who solicit money every day, so your approach to a Foundation may be rebuffed (especially if your approach is only emotional and lacking in required research and a sound re-use proposal), or they may end up giving you only a tiny fraction of what you need to redo the KINGS. Most foundations are now targeted to social causes, not architectural preservation, so carefully note the goals/causes of a foundation and approach them ONLY in harmony with what you perceive they want and will give to. Such a directory (there are several) will show to what causes a foundation has given, what their giving limits are in their fiscal year, what restrictions they have on their gifts, and how you are required to approach them. Realistically, very few such give more than a million to a single cause, and many much less, so they will be looking to see if you are approaching others to make up the difference to do what needs to be done. Few will give anything if it appears that Friends of the KINGS is unincorporated as a non-profit, has no realistic program at least suggested, no big names on their board, no special bank account in which they could deposit a foundation check, and the intention that just this one foundation should bear the entire multimillion cost of the restoration. Local charities may be able to advise you as to realistic contributors, but Friends of the JERSEY may not be a realistic help in this regard, since the laws of New Jersey may well be quite different than those of New York. Under the search term FOUNDATIONS DIRECTORY, www.Google.com lists some 3 million ‘hits’ and perhaps this will be of help to you. Best Wishes.
John Eberson had more than one legal locus of operation throughout his career, but he was no doubt not always registered in every state in which a developer wanted his work. One way around this legal hindrance, is to contract with a local architect, who is called the ‘Architect of Record’, who is legally responsible for what is submitted as plans to local authorities, and for what is actually built. With a man as renowned as Eberson, there was no hesitation by a local man to sign on as the local representative of the ‘great man’ since it was also lucrative to the local architect to enter into such an alliance. It oftentimes led to that man becoming a junior partner in Eberson’s firm, or so the man hoped. Building a movie palace was a HUGE enterprise demanding many talents and lots of money, so it was not difficult to imagine developers searching about for an architect/designer who had a proven track record of successful designs. By the mid ‘Twenties, there were hundreds of architects who had eagerly thrust their hand into such designs, but not all covered themselves with glory, as Ben Hall recalls in his landmark book THE BEST REMAINING SEATS.
Generally, it is beneficial to get landmark status, even though that almost never preserves much beyond ORIGINAL exterior. Landmarking can at least stop the quick buck guys who buy an historic structure, and then quickly resell it to someone who has no intention to preserve it, but intends to demolish it to build something else. For what protections one can depend upon with landmarking, one must consult one’s Historic Preservation officer at the state house, a real estate attorney, or the League of Historic American Theatres for information relative to one’s own state’s laws, since the federal and local laws are administered under the state’s.
The only downside to landmarking is that many buyers are really interested in the potential land value of the property and want the option to remodel or demolish as they wish in future, so will not buy a landmarked property. But would we want them to own such a landmark worthy structure? Landmarking also shows potential buyers that the property is considered worthy by experts and the public alike, and many money men wouldn’t know artistic or historic significance if it came up and bit them; they need to be guided by such as Landmark Designation to see where they can put their money and thereby buy some public stature. Many money men already own dozens of properties, but they want the ‘feather in their cap’ of being known for also owning a prestegious structure worthy of being designated a landmark, and promoters of a landmark must be willing to allow the change of name to such as ‘money man’s theatre’ or whatever his name is, to entice such large egos to invest in a theatre. For example, if Donald Trump were to be invited, one would have to expect to massage his ego by allowing him to name it the TRUMP THEATRE. You cannot expect big money to be humble in this country where money is god and king.
Recent color photos of this theatre can be found on the site: “America’s Stunning Theatres” by photographer and stagehand Noah Kern at: http://www.pbase.com/affablebeef/theatres Comments and information may be left there without registration; such can be public view or only to Mr. Kern. Scroll down the page to find the name, and then click on the sample image above it to be taken to the page of photos of it.
Recent color photos of this theatre can be found on the site: “America’s Stunning Theatres” by photographer and stagehand Noah Kern at: http://www.pbase.com/affablebeef/theatres Comments and information may be left there without registration; such can be public view or only to Mr. Kern. Scroll down the page to find the name, and then click on the sample image above it to be taken to the page of photos of it.
I’m afraid that HOORAY FOR HOLLYWOOD would only make one think that yours was another cinephile pic, rather than about the theatre itself. The Brooklyn song I have never heard.
This news item may not be pleasant to read, but at least we might possibly have hope that our venerable Riverside Theatre might still be with us for some time to come: View link
Now, who would have thought that a tax-supported and much larger facility would take away a large amount of the buiness that our local theatres had survived upon? Yeah, who??? ;) Well, maybe, just maybe there is a bright side to all this IF the new management will be more sympathetic to letting Dairyland Theatre Organ Society back in to bring that Wurli alive again for the public. We can only hope.
Don K.’s discussion is right on the nose, and it will be intersting to see what developes now that big business virtually ‘owns’ the govenment. Much more discussion about his is in the FORMUS of the site: www.bigscreenbiz.com
Dear Mr. Miano, you have a wonderful memory there and it is generous of you to share it with those of us who can only imagine how great and unforgetable is must have been to stare out from that stage into that imensity of applauding people in that magnificent place! May you have many more years there and perhaps another evening of that filled-house magic. From one theatre devotee to another: BRAVO!
IF no one responds to your question about the “suits of armor” you might possibly find the data at the Theatre Historical Soc. just outside of Chicago in Elmhurst. Contact them through their Ex. Director, Rich Sklenar at www.historictheatres.org Their man Joe DuciBella is their resident expert on the CHICAGO and may well be able to help.
The Coronado’s new book is very colorful, but it would have been the greater had it had some of the interior details shots shown on this photographer’s site: http://www.pbase.com/affablebeef/rockford Let’s hope that they remain there for the public to enjoy for years to come!
This announcement appeared on today’s NewsFlash bulletin from the Theatre Historical Society, and it may be of interest to any who have the time and money to attend this League of Historic American Theatres convention, which they call their “Ramble”. These people are the professionals in historic theatre restoration and operation, so valuable information and contacts may be obtained. Perhaps this is just the impetus that the Friends of the Kings needs. If a few of you fellows can attend, perhaps sharing the cost of a hotel room, then you may have a concrete beginning, though I still am of the opinion that the state of the KINGS is such that only a big money investor can bring it to life. I cannot attend, but Best Wishes to any who can.
“Have you made plans yet to come to Kansas City in July for the 29th Annual LHAT Conference and Theatre Tour? > > CREATING A LEGACY: HISTORIC THEATRES IN THE MIDDLE OF IT ALL > > Main Conference: July 20-23, 2005 > Optional Pre-Conference Theatre Ramble: July 19th > > Headquarters Hotel: The Fairmont Kansas City at the Plaza > > > REGISTRATION > > Registration will open soon for the conference, BUT YOU CAN RESERVE YOUR HOTEL ROOM NOW. > > For reservation information, click here: View link The LHAT group rate is available through June 24th. > > > 2005 CONFERENCE BROCHURE > > LHAT members will automatically receive by mail the 2005 conference registration brochure AS SOON as it is available. If you are not an active member or are not sure you are on the LHAT mailing list and would like to receive a brochure, please email us at with your contact information. > > All the details we currently have available about the conference are on our website now: http://www.lhat.org/conference_theatre.asp > > There you will find details about the conference schedule, special and optional events, educational workshops, theatre tours, accommodations, Kansas City and registration fees. > > > WHY IS IT IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO ATTEND? > > We all share a common appreciation for the cultural and architectural heritage that historic theatres represent in our communities. We share the goals of carefully restoring, refitting and effectively operating our theatres. However, our industry is comprised of a diverse group of individuals and organizations that have differing needs at various stages of project maturity. > > Recognizing these realities, our Annual Conference is designed to address those disparate interests. Whether you are: > > – Starting to mobilize a community around a visionary dream > – Just beginning to select an architect, mount a funding campaign, or launch the construction phase > – In the early years of operating, programming and marketing a historic theatre > – Or, a veteran who has been at it for years > > your focus is on sustaining the viability of a historic theatre and on future-driven imperatives. At the LHAT 2005 Conference, there will be invaluable resources and professional development opportunities for everyone! > > Join hundreds of your colleagues from across North America in Kansas City this July. Reconnect with your peers. Enrich your own professional capacity through our respective successes, challenges and fresh ideas. We can all return home with a renewed spirit in the noble cause that each us strives to uphold every day of the year. > > > For questions, further information or if you are unable to access the above links, please contact the LHAT office at or call toll-free (877) 627-0833. > > > > > For more Information call 410-659-9533”
Warren, could you check that photo number again? I couldn’t find the image either by it or by going to the ‘movie theatre’ category. If there were some alpha elements to that photo number that may have been omitted, they apparently are necessary to find the image.
The OnMilwaukee.com web site announced on April 21st, at:
View link
that the AVALON has been purchased by a local investor who anticipates returning it to a performance space, though the exact nature of that space is still to be announced. He remarks that there is a lot of work to be done to make the neglected movie palace workable again, so we should not expect to see it open for at least a year. This sounds promising, but one shouldn’t hold his breath with this theatre with no parking space at all. I will contact him as I did the previous owners to help them with restoration ideas such as how to make flameproof shrubbry to replace the long-gone shrubs that originally adorned the horizon line around the sky edge, but I hope that they succeed even if sufficient volunteers are not forthcoming. Let us hope that this new ownership will see many wonderful years to come for this fine atmospheric!
With the announcement in April of 2005 that the AVALON is being purchased by a new owner and will reopen, Mr. Hollis of the ROSEBUD (former TOSA in Wauwatosa) has droped plans for the Bay View location for his new cinema. Instead today’s newspaper says that he will purchse his sister’s cinema, the TIMES. That story will be available for the next four years here: http://www.jsonline.com/bym/news/may05/326028.asp
I hope for the success of the new ownership, which will retain Steve Levin as the operator/lessor for the forseeable future, but if ticket sales again slide, I wonder at the probable success of puting in first run there, since only two miles away Mr. Hollis' ROSEBUD already shows first run. Can two first runs succeed that close to each other?
It is highly unlikely that the BROOKLYN PARAMOUNT would be torn down, since Long Island University enjoys using the many offices that front the theatre, a feature that has caused more than one movie palace to enjoy an extended life. If only the KINGS had had such a feature to help it survive in easily restorable condition. No, demolition is not impossible for either, but it would have been nice even for rehab purposes to have rental spaces to gain needed revenue. Is there any space on the land of the KINGS to build at least a small office/residential/commercial building? IF so, then such should also be mentioned prominently in any proposal for the theatre. Modern rehabs usually also want added stage depth and rehersal areas among other new space requirements; does the KINGS' site allow for this? Could an adjacent site be acquired in a package deal to allow for such expansion, a method used with many other rehabed/restored theatres? It is all about making the real estate deal attractive to investors!
A number of “Stepale2"s earlier comments and proposed captions about the ROXY were taken word for word from the late Ben M. Hall’s "The Best Remaining Seats: The Story7 of the Golden Age of the Movie Palace” and I hope that they were fully credited in the proposed book, since they are not so credited here.
TC’s comment about the “bell” is illuminating and I wonder where he found such detail about the installations by Deagon. Lest anyone assume that he is talking about a glockenspiel, the “bell” was a ten thousand pound, 15-foot-high array of tubes which were struck by ‘hammers’ as soleniods with dampers controlled from the organ console! The photo of them on page 88 the late Ben Hall’s landmark book “The Best Remaining Seats: The Story of the Golden Age of the Movie Palace” shows why they were referred to most often as “chimes.” The previous page claims that there were 21 notes to this indoor carillon, but we won’t quibble about the total since it must have been a wondorous sound in any case! I believe that I somewhere read that they were mounted above the ceiling near the stage where a separate division of the organ, called the “Fanfare Organ” was located. I too react with the thought ‘what a waste to demolish such with the theatre’ but it occurs to me: ‘where would one quickly move and install such a massive instrument?!!’ Few buildings are large enought to receive a 15-foot-square, ten thousand pound musical instrument.
You don’t mention if the theatres are actually in Taunton, but if you search by their names plus the location, here and at such sites as www.CinemaTour.com you may find something on-line. You might do best with local sources such as the main library, the local historical societies, the community’s archived records, the state historic preservation officer at the capitol, and reserach in local newspapers' back issues and ‘morgues’ for photos taken at or near opening. By far the largest repository of theatre data/photos in the USA is at the Theatre Historical Society which you can contact via their Ex. Dir. listed on their front page at: www.historictheatres.org Best Wishes.
Some of the above posts imply that today’s theatre designers are bent on creating only a cheap, boring experience, but to be fair, it must be remembered that designers are paid by the multiplex chains, and these are mostly conglomerates which exist by definition for, and only for, profit — as much profit as they can get, either legally or illegally (it doesn’t really matter as long as they can get away with it — and they now OWN the governments, so who is left to prosecute them?); whatever works. Governments and their corts no longer stand in their way, and exhibition is but one business that is now in the control of Big Money.
These types will always seek to eliminate anyone who stands in the way of maximum profit, and that includes the distributors and exhibitors. If they can sell directly to the public, the ‘studios’ get all the profit for themselves, hence my commet at the top. They are only biding their time until a sufficiently secure and reasonably inexpensive means arrives to get the product to the public at the highest profit by eliminating all middle men; when technology soon makes that possible, say goodbye to any theatres not owned by the ‘studios!’ Debating projection or media techniques as we do now, will then be as pointless as debating the preservation worthiness of a building as the bulldozers are rolling up to finish it off. Cinema as we know it will then be only a fond memory. As Aldous Huxley said: “It is a Brave New World.” But do we want to be there?!
There has been a long debate on the www.bigscreenbiz.com site’s LOBBY FORUM about what effect Digital Cinema will have on the independent exhibitor, which the CAMELOT will become. Even if they do install exclusively digital electronic projection, they may not have many years to enjoy any profit from it. The film makers now admit that they make more money via DVDs than film, so the handwriting may be on the wall as regards the eventual end of film and any independents that would show it. With digital having a high price tag for installation and the makers having the ability to determine just which cinemas will get a title, it may not be long before only their own multiplexes will get any title. I forsee Big Business doing away with the restrictions of the Sherman Anti-Trust act which originally separated the studios from the theatres they owned back in 1948, and going back to the profitable model of the studios controlling the exhibition and forcing out any independents. At least in those days, the theaters were better kept up and of higher quality since each studio’s chains were in competition for the movie goer’s money, but I don’t think that will happen again, since the ticket sale revenue is getting so much smaller than the DVD revenue. Like it or not, technology is creating a new marketplace.
Dave Wodeyla will not necessarily get an invoice for a photo from THSA, since if he did not ORDER a photo, it is likely that they will simply send him a xerox of one for him to decide if he wants to pay for a glossy photo.
AS to the asbestos fears, we may all be barking up the wrong tree; while the notice does say a “vintage” fire curtain, it may not be asbestos. Many times the word “steel” is used for a fire curtain term, since many such ‘curtains’ were in fact sheets of lapped steel. It might pay to ask.
Aside from local libraries and historical societies and the morgues of newspapers, your best bet is the Theatre Historical Society of America at www.historictheatres.org and click on their ARCHIVE link for information. An E-mail to their Ex. Dir. Rich Sklenar may be of preliminary help. Best Wishes.
Maybe they just appreciate its scenic/historic value, and are not aware of any hazard involved. Accoreding to the book ENVIRONMENTAL OVERKILL, the type of asbestos used in such is NOT injurious to people. And if it is desireable, its backside could be sprayed with a paint to seal in any fibers.
I sense your pain and frustration, Bruce1; we all want to see it become a beautiful theatre once again, but, no, there are no guarantees, regardless of all the good will and effort you have put in. The reason I mention landmarking that may only preserve the exterior, is that it may likely discourage those who simply want to demolish or gut the interior, because demolition would be prohibited, and gutting or drastically altering the interior would likely entail changes to the facade also for structural reasons. Since this would be expensive to adapt a new interior to existing windows, steel, ornament, etc., a nefarious developer would be daunted by the expense involved since a theatre exterior is nothing like a factory, condos, or offices, for example. Thus your landmarking would not only show the merit of the building in the eyes of the good people who might restore it, but it would dim the appeal of the place in the eyes of those who only want to wreck it.
Theatrat: If you want input from the Jersey, I strongly suggest that you join their group and befriend a MAN at their meetings who seems able to guide you in the process of landmarking or rehabbing as they did the Jersey. The woman in charge may now see herself as too powerful and occupied with other matters to devote time to help you. If you can get a guy interested there, then perhaps he and some buddies will be willing to take a jaunt to Brooklyn to check out the KINGS and see what can be done, but they will likely expect you and
Bruce1 as well as Gustave and others to have met at least once before they will meet with you so that they can know just who they are talking to. If it turns out that more than one individual or group approaches the Friends of the Jersey, they may feel that their time is being wasted by too many unconnected people. You must meet and at least set up an informal group before anyone will take you seriously. I write in advocacy of movie palaces here in Milwaukee, but I have no influence upon local movers and shakers (money men) because I have no group behind me, no official standing. My advice is cheap, but money men want a realistic estimate as to what the return on their investment will be, or if they are independently wealthy, like the millionaire who bought the PABST THEATER here from the city in order to gain historic prestige, then such will buy prestige more than an investment, since theatres RARELY make lots of money and they are EXPENSIVE to keep up. Thus the appeal of the ‘Friends of the KINGS’ must be to money men who (1) adore theatres, or (2) seek a public scale project by which to buy adoration for themelves, though they would never put it that way.
Do you know your big wigs in the area well enough to have an intermidiary approach them? A good place to look is in the Directory of Foundations at the library which will give you their names, if not their addresses. Foundations are started by such men to avoid taxes, and also have a staff to shield the big wig from the many people who solicit money every day, so your approach to a Foundation may be rebuffed (especially if your approach is only emotional and lacking in required research and a sound re-use proposal), or they may end up giving you only a tiny fraction of what you need to redo the KINGS. Most foundations are now targeted to social causes, not architectural preservation, so carefully note the goals/causes of a foundation and approach them ONLY in harmony with what you perceive they want and will give to. Such a directory (there are several) will show to what causes a foundation has given, what their giving limits are in their fiscal year, what restrictions they have on their gifts, and how you are required to approach them. Realistically, very few such give more than a million to a single cause, and many much less, so they will be looking to see if you are approaching others to make up the difference to do what needs to be done. Few will give anything if it appears that Friends of the KINGS is unincorporated as a non-profit, has no realistic program at least suggested, no big names on their board, no special bank account in which they could deposit a foundation check, and the intention that just this one foundation should bear the entire multimillion cost of the restoration. Local charities may be able to advise you as to realistic contributors, but Friends of the JERSEY may not be a realistic help in this regard, since the laws of New Jersey may well be quite different than those of New York. Under the search term FOUNDATIONS DIRECTORY, www.Google.com lists some 3 million ‘hits’ and perhaps this will be of help to you. Best Wishes.
Theaterat: I believe that the masculine singular of ‘theaterati’ is Theaterato, and I beleive they would allow you to change to that if you wish.
John Eberson had more than one legal locus of operation throughout his career, but he was no doubt not always registered in every state in which a developer wanted his work. One way around this legal hindrance, is to contract with a local architect, who is called the ‘Architect of Record’, who is legally responsible for what is submitted as plans to local authorities, and for what is actually built. With a man as renowned as Eberson, there was no hesitation by a local man to sign on as the local representative of the ‘great man’ since it was also lucrative to the local architect to enter into such an alliance. It oftentimes led to that man becoming a junior partner in Eberson’s firm, or so the man hoped. Building a movie palace was a HUGE enterprise demanding many talents and lots of money, so it was not difficult to imagine developers searching about for an architect/designer who had a proven track record of successful designs. By the mid ‘Twenties, there were hundreds of architects who had eagerly thrust their hand into such designs, but not all covered themselves with glory, as Ben Hall recalls in his landmark book THE BEST REMAINING SEATS.
Generally, it is beneficial to get landmark status, even though that almost never preserves much beyond ORIGINAL exterior. Landmarking can at least stop the quick buck guys who buy an historic structure, and then quickly resell it to someone who has no intention to preserve it, but intends to demolish it to build something else. For what protections one can depend upon with landmarking, one must consult one’s Historic Preservation officer at the state house, a real estate attorney, or the League of Historic American Theatres for information relative to one’s own state’s laws, since the federal and local laws are administered under the state’s.
The only downside to landmarking is that many buyers are really interested in the potential land value of the property and want the option to remodel or demolish as they wish in future, so will not buy a landmarked property. But would we want them to own such a landmark worthy structure? Landmarking also shows potential buyers that the property is considered worthy by experts and the public alike, and many money men wouldn’t know artistic or historic significance if it came up and bit them; they need to be guided by such as Landmark Designation to see where they can put their money and thereby buy some public stature. Many money men already own dozens of properties, but they want the ‘feather in their cap’ of being known for also owning a prestegious structure worthy of being designated a landmark, and promoters of a landmark must be willing to allow the change of name to such as ‘money man’s theatre’ or whatever his name is, to entice such large egos to invest in a theatre. For example, if Donald Trump were to be invited, one would have to expect to massage his ego by allowing him to name it the TRUMP THEATRE. You cannot expect big money to be humble in this country where money is god and king.