Elmwood Theatre
57-02 Hoffman Drive,
Elmhurst,
NY
11373
57-02 Hoffman Drive,
Elmhurst,
NY
11373
24 people
favorited this theater
Showing 26 - 50 of 193 comments
I’m with Bway on this one. Not sure where you come from pvgriswold. But everyone is entitled to voice their opinion. It is nice that the building is in use. But if you don’t want to hear complaints about terra cotta destruction I suggest that it might be better for you not to visit historic preservation web sites. Everyone here likely judges this work as butchery, and I don’t think any amount of talk regarding community builiding or the Good Lord is going to change that.
And they could have had the same “flowering art and positive energy to creativity” within the building without destroying the historic terra cotta exterior as they did. While I am glad the church is in the building, and that it’s still set up like a theater, what we have now instead of a historic beautiful terra ctta building it’s a typical nondescript faux exterior.
I’ve been reading comments loaded with complaints regarding the fading beauty of the Elmwood. I took a look at the following recent dance recital View link
and can only marvel at the positive energy and commitment to creativity of teens in the video. This is exactly what a theater/church space should be used for. The whining over the physical demise of the structure runs on endlessly, but while the whiners drone on, it seems there is beautiful flowering of community and art within the building.
PG
Has anyone been inside the “church” to see what the interior of the theater looks like now?
I noticed the same thing. I drove by the Elmwood about 3 weeks ago. The loss of the terra cotta is a travesty, but at least the building does remain, I guess it could have been worse.
I still can’t believe all that beautiful terra cotta work is gone. Native’s comparison to the many McMansions that are going up all over Queens is spot on. I guess at this point we just have to accept the fact that this is the direction the church chose to go with the exterior – ill advised and regrettable as that choice may have been – and remain thankful that they are attempting to restore the interior to something resembling its original splendor. This entire structure could have been quite easily sold and gutted – or even demolished for re-development.
Lets hope we have more luck with the Ridgewood Theater.
Sad how a promised restoration of one of Queens' most historic theaters now symbolizes a McMansion with artificial stucco known as “dryvit.” Kudos for retaining the sign, and the balustrades and ornamentation near the roof though.
Great links, Warren!
The sign works fine now the R now looks like an R i took those pictures the first day they were testing them. + the main entrance is almost done.
new pictures
View link
View link
They’ll have to fix the “R” in Rock Church. It doesn’t seem to illuminate fully and looks like “Pock Church” in the long shot. I hope the “ELMWOOD” lettering will remain – even if they don’t decide to restore illumination. Should I be encouraged by the fact that the original letters are still up there or discouraged that the clashing font and color of the new signage might spell doom for the original?
New Pictures!!
View link
View link
That’s some good news. I’m delighted that the sigh will be retained – even if somewhat altered. I’m hoping the new lettering will be in keeping with the overall design of the original sign.
No, it won’t be breathtaking.
I hope the building serves your purposes well. But your group really messed it up.
I am not doubting any of the above, but God could have done that behind the once beautiful terra-cotta facsade too….
just wait until its done ,it will be breathtaking ,and you guys will be overwhelmed …it is going to be amazing …a place not only of entertainment but where the broken can be healed ,lives restore and helped, it will be just a glimpse of God’s goodness ,he repairs teh broken ruins and fragmented ,naturally and spritually and makes them his work of art …
just wait and see .
tenderly
darls c
Thanks, Warren. However much we might disagree with the unfortunate choices made in the renovation of the Elmwood’s exterior, the Rock Church is to be commended for its efforts in restoring the interior of the old theatre – not only in terms of architectural preservation but of functionality as well.
Ugh!!! They took off the marquee too! It looked so good on there with their Rock Church sign!
How did we go from this beautiful sight to what they did to it now….
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gooseotter/187390782/
Thanks for sharing the photos and your memories, but it’s unbelievable what was done and how they lied to the community.
“insulting asides” are part of the spice of CT. I’ve zinged a few myself.
I think you need to develop a thicker skin Fernando.
When you did that work on the building, you drew the attention of the preservation community. Now you are hearing our opinions.
Think of it as being like a new movie release. A movie comes out and journalists everywhere have opinions about how good or bad the movie is.
Volunteer labor is commendable, and I am glad the building was not demolished. But I think the work you carried out on the exterior exhibits extremely poor judgment. That is my opinion, and there is no reason I should have to apologize for it.
I don’t appreciate you trying to heap shame on us for voicing our displeasure.
Fernando… I, for one, am extraordinarily grateful that the Rock Church came along and saved the Elmwood from an uncertain fate (RKO Keith’s anyone?), but I don’t think that the restoration path chosen for the exterior of the building is beyond critical analysis. That all this work has been done by volunteers is a tremendous credit to the Church and its congregation. Kudos and my sincere respect to all involved. However, I find (as do others) it extremely disappointing and frustrating that the beautiful original exterior – which appeared to be in very good condition right up to the end – was destroyed rather than preserved.
I hope that you don’t hold those opinions against those who have elected to post them here. I can understand your taking issue with the tone of some of the comments or the insulting asides that have been posted here by some, but understand that this is a website that is open to free discussion by all who wish to participate. As a result, the opinions expressed in this forum will inevitably run the gamut from respectful and well articulated to belligerently offensive – and everything in between. Please do not indict the entire board because you find a few of the opinions or comments to be critical or even disrespectful of the church’s plans and actions.
Here’s another photo of the beautiful front of the building before it was destroyed. What a gem it would have been….
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gooseotter/187390782/
Such a beautiful facade, lost forever:
View link
(Repost photo originally posted by Jeffery1955 above on this page)
While it’s great that the building did survive, the exterior destroying of the entire historic terra-cotta and woodwork on the windows is a travesty. It’s now just like any other non-historic non-descript exterior building, lost all it’s historic features unncessarily. Yes, it’s better than had it been destroyed, but you could have saved a lot of money, and at the same time kept a historic building’s exterior had you just not covered/destroyed the beautiful historic fascade of that building.
Yes, you are to be commended on saving the building, and maintaining it, and hopefully restoring what’s left of the interior after the multiplexing of the theater….but unfortunately what happened on the outside clouds the whole project. There was no reason to cover over the exterior of that building.
Fernado, I tried sending you e-mails (as well as others) with a sincere proposal telling you how the majority of us felt, and you said you would make sure it would end up in the right hands, but I never heard back since. Why should I apologize, if I feel it was wrong to commit to a restoration in 2003-2004 (with the press), get people’s hopes up, and proceed with just the opposite?
The terra cotta facade and tilework did not have to be concealed with stucco, and other facade elements did not have to be carted away for the trash. My proposals contained ways to fund a proper restoration. How could priceless antiques of an extremely rare & significant Queens heritage site, which required some restoration work, be destroyed further (by stucco)? I am baffled.
Being dedicated towards the future and character of Queens, I am still willing to work with you, and help the church restore faith in the community by eliminating the stucco and revealing the original tilework. I know of agencies/non-profit orgs who can help.