If you go to the official website under Official Websites) for this theatre, and then go to the English version, there is a gallery tab that has several pictures of the theater’s exterior over the years, and there some night views on this webpage.
According this this article about the theater’s installation of digital equipment, the theater opened as a twin after a fire at the lake Center Mall in 1999; it became a quad in 2004 or so. View article.
As with so many other small, independent theaters, the Parkhill is struggling to survive; in addition to the digital conversion challenge, the mall in which it is located is also having some problems: View article.
Other former movie theaters operated by AEG as live event venues include the El Rey in L.A., the Keswick in Philadelphia, the Royal Oak in Royal Oak, MI, the Midland in Kansas City, the Ogden in Denver, the Warfield in San Francisco, and the Regency Ballroom (formerly the Regency I), also in San Francisco.
It is not a question of whether a developer “knows about” the process and the steps involved (I am sure that ACE does, as it is completing work on the Saenger restoration in New Orleans and that was certainly comparably complicated), it is that the process and time required is notoriously unpredictable, because of the fact the various agencies operate independently and often autonomously; in some cases, when an applicant’s plans are disapproved or sent back for changes, the process has to be restarted with one or more of the other agencies.
As the comments indicate, the Cinerama installation was never intended to be permanent. It was an unusual and fortuitous set of events that brought it about: the lucky coincidence of a Cinerama enthusiast and projectionist, John Harvey, living in Dayton who had, on his own, collected the equipment and films and a theater owner who was going to subdivide his single screen theater who, with John, decided to set up Cinerama just for a brief time before the construction began. As noted, what was supposed to be just a special event attracted so many people that it ran for about three years.
The setup wasn’t elegant; the Able and Charley booths were obviously temporary enclosures tucked into the corners of a very small auditorium that sat perhaps 300 people; the Baker projector was in the lobby, its beam projecting through a hole in the wall; the Cinerama sound reproducer was set up next to it. Though the screen was a genuine strip-screen with as much of a curve as the building could accommodate, it was easy to see that it was a temporary set-up, and this was probably the smallest Cinerama screen ever installed. Yet, it was all proportionally correct, and when the lights went down, the magic was all faithfully and lovingly recreated.
It could not last, though. The Neon was still operating as a regular small art theater; the Cinerama showings were held on weekends, the publicity, to the extent it existed at all, was essentially via the internet and word-of-mouth. Eventually, the crowds became smaller, and the owner needed to proceed with the twinning. I am sure that there was also concern about the equipment and the durability of the prints; these had been assembled by John Harvey from a number of prints and there was, at that time, no way of easily replacing them. The “Cinerama Holiday” print had faded to pink, and even the “This is Cinerama” print, though in otherwise good shape, had a short section with German subtitles. In addition, John was not a young man, and a proper showing of Cinerama requires a crew, not just one person. I have read that in its original showings, some theaters had a projection team of about fifteen people; they managed it at the New Neon with probably three.
But it was a wonderful three years or so, and had it not happened, I doubt if we would have had the full restorations at the Cinerama Dome and the Seattle Cinerama and the striking of new prints. I think it was an important chapter in keeping Cinerama alive, and I am sorry that this particular opportunity is not available anymore, and that the only venues that can still show authentic Cinerama in the U.S. are both on the West Coast.
Fortunately, the Cinerama Dome and the Seattle Cinerama still show authentic three panel Cinerama films occasionally (the Dome is having a major Cinerama event just about now, as I write this), though you do need to visit their sites to find out when. Usually some contributor will also give Cinema Treasures a heads up. Oh, and if you are ever in England, the Pictureville Cinema in Bradford shows “This is Cinerama” on the first Saturday of every month, and also has a widescreen festival each year, which always includes at least one three-panel Cinerama film. It is usually held in March.
Oh would that that were true! But in this case, just as an example, a lengthy impact study had to be completed to determine how traffic and transportation would be affected even before any work began (this can be found online). Then there will be the approval of construction plans by various city and state agencies, environmental impact statements, and review for adherence to hiring and affirmative action requirements (especially if public funds are involved).
In addition, if this theater has an historic designation or is within an historic district, additional panels will have to review the plans and determine if the repairs and alterations conform to preservation guidelines. If the operator wants to serve alcohol, the there will be a review of the license application. In addition, there may be neighborhood groups or civic groups that may want to have a legitimate say in the project.
Many of the agencies involved in these reviews are autonomous and cannot be overruled by another body, even in the interest of expediting the process.
It is not my intention to be negative here; it is just that I have had some personal if low level experience in trying to save a few theaters and the process is often frustrating and complicated.
There does not seem to have been anything in the print media since the announcements in February; however, the project is still listed at the ACE Theatrical website with a completion date set for 2014. It would not surprise me if the delay may be due to the often maze-like, cumbersome, regulatory, and bureaucratic set of hurdles that projects such as this have to jump, especially in large cities.
I am sure that additional advertising would help somewhat, but I have to agree with LIM; it is just not the kind of picture that will come anywhere close to filling up the Ziegfield. The reviews, which are generally favorable, are also mixed with regard to its qualities, and it appears that the fact that it was filmed in 70mm does not seem to have resulted in a whole lot of extra interest (especially since what is being presented is a standard ratio 1:1.85 film except with some really good photography). In a way, it a parallel example many of us have said recently about the current revival of 3-D; in order for a 3-D to be successful, there has to be a match between the scope and subject matter of the film and the imaginative and involving use of the process. This is no mass audience blockbuster (I doubt if it was intended to be); rather, it is a a film that will appeal to a more selective audience.
Bobby S: Enlarge each Google map accompanying each theater on the respective pages; if you use the Prospect Park Parade Ground as a point of reference, you will see that they were not all that close to each other; as you noted, Brooklyn is pretty big.
Actually, the big downtown palaces fared reasonably well in the Depression, due to the relatively inexpensive tickets and did well into the 1940’s, though architectural tastes changed, and combination programs of live acts and movie programming became less frequent, eliminating the need for elaborate, fully-equipped stages. Yes, some chain owners like William Fox went bankrupt and some theaters did close and fewer were built.
But there were three major factors that really doomed both the existing and any planned palaces, and all of them occurred after the Great Depression: the 1948 Paramount Consent Decree that forced the major studios to divest themselves of their theater chains, the coming of television, and the exodus of so many people to the suburbs. There was, especially in the 1960’s a relatively brief flowering of large, single screen theaters that might be regarded as sort of second generation palaces, but the arrival of multiplexes eventually doomed many of these or resulted in their being subdivided, in many cases atrociously.
If you go to the official website under Official Websites) for this theatre, and then go to the English version, there is a gallery tab that has several pictures of the theater’s exterior over the years, and there some night views on this webpage.
Views of the theater’s auditorium and movie screen can be seen here, here, and here.
According this this article about the theater’s installation of digital equipment, the theater opened as a twin after a fire at the lake Center Mall in 1999; it became a quad in 2004 or so. View article.
The theater is now a part of a small chain call Picture Show Entertainment; the official website is: http://pictureshowent.com/.
As with so many other small, independent theaters, the Parkhill is struggling to survive; in addition to the digital conversion challenge, the mall in which it is located is also having some problems: View article.
Other former movie theaters operated by AEG as live event venues include the El Rey in L.A., the Keswick in Philadelphia, the Royal Oak in Royal Oak, MI, the Midland in Kansas City, the Ogden in Denver, the Warfield in San Francisco, and the Regency Ballroom (formerly the Regency I), also in San Francisco.
It is not a question of whether a developer “knows about” the process and the steps involved (I am sure that ACE does, as it is completing work on the Saenger restoration in New Orleans and that was certainly comparably complicated), it is that the process and time required is notoriously unpredictable, because of the fact the various agencies operate independently and often autonomously; in some cases, when an applicant’s plans are disapproved or sent back for changes, the process has to be restarted with one or more of the other agencies.
As the comments indicate, the Cinerama installation was never intended to be permanent. It was an unusual and fortuitous set of events that brought it about: the lucky coincidence of a Cinerama enthusiast and projectionist, John Harvey, living in Dayton who had, on his own, collected the equipment and films and a theater owner who was going to subdivide his single screen theater who, with John, decided to set up Cinerama just for a brief time before the construction began. As noted, what was supposed to be just a special event attracted so many people that it ran for about three years.
The setup wasn’t elegant; the Able and Charley booths were obviously temporary enclosures tucked into the corners of a very small auditorium that sat perhaps 300 people; the Baker projector was in the lobby, its beam projecting through a hole in the wall; the Cinerama sound reproducer was set up next to it. Though the screen was a genuine strip-screen with as much of a curve as the building could accommodate, it was easy to see that it was a temporary set-up, and this was probably the smallest Cinerama screen ever installed. Yet, it was all proportionally correct, and when the lights went down, the magic was all faithfully and lovingly recreated.
It could not last, though. The Neon was still operating as a regular small art theater; the Cinerama showings were held on weekends, the publicity, to the extent it existed at all, was essentially via the internet and word-of-mouth. Eventually, the crowds became smaller, and the owner needed to proceed with the twinning. I am sure that there was also concern about the equipment and the durability of the prints; these had been assembled by John Harvey from a number of prints and there was, at that time, no way of easily replacing them. The “Cinerama Holiday” print had faded to pink, and even the “This is Cinerama” print, though in otherwise good shape, had a short section with German subtitles. In addition, John was not a young man, and a proper showing of Cinerama requires a crew, not just one person. I have read that in its original showings, some theaters had a projection team of about fifteen people; they managed it at the New Neon with probably three.
But it was a wonderful three years or so, and had it not happened, I doubt if we would have had the full restorations at the Cinerama Dome and the Seattle Cinerama and the striking of new prints. I think it was an important chapter in keeping Cinerama alive, and I am sorry that this particular opportunity is not available anymore, and that the only venues that can still show authentic Cinerama in the U.S. are both on the West Coast.
Fortunately, the Cinerama Dome and the Seattle Cinerama still show authentic three panel Cinerama films occasionally (the Dome is having a major Cinerama event just about now, as I write this), though you do need to visit their sites to find out when. Usually some contributor will also give Cinema Treasures a heads up. Oh, and if you are ever in England, the Pictureville Cinema in Bradford shows “This is Cinerama” on the first Saturday of every month, and also has a widescreen festival each year, which always includes at least one three-panel Cinerama film. It is usually held in March.
Oh would that that were true! But in this case, just as an example, a lengthy impact study had to be completed to determine how traffic and transportation would be affected even before any work began (this can be found online). Then there will be the approval of construction plans by various city and state agencies, environmental impact statements, and review for adherence to hiring and affirmative action requirements (especially if public funds are involved).
In addition, if this theater has an historic designation or is within an historic district, additional panels will have to review the plans and determine if the repairs and alterations conform to preservation guidelines. If the operator wants to serve alcohol, the there will be a review of the license application. In addition, there may be neighborhood groups or civic groups that may want to have a legitimate say in the project.
Many of the agencies involved in these reviews are autonomous and cannot be overruled by another body, even in the interest of expediting the process.
It is not my intention to be negative here; it is just that I have had some personal if low level experience in trying to save a few theaters and the process is often frustrating and complicated.
There does not seem to have been anything in the print media since the announcements in February; however, the project is still listed at the ACE Theatrical website with a completion date set for 2014. It would not surprise me if the delay may be due to the often maze-like, cumbersome, regulatory, and bureaucratic set of hurdles that projects such as this have to jump, especially in large cities.
I am sure that additional advertising would help somewhat, but I have to agree with LIM; it is just not the kind of picture that will come anywhere close to filling up the Ziegfield. The reviews, which are generally favorable, are also mixed with regard to its qualities, and it appears that the fact that it was filmed in 70mm does not seem to have resulted in a whole lot of extra interest (especially since what is being presented is a standard ratio 1:1.85 film except with some really good photography). In a way, it a parallel example many of us have said recently about the current revival of 3-D; in order for a 3-D to be successful, there has to be a match between the scope and subject matter of the film and the imaginative and involving use of the process. This is no mass audience blockbuster (I doubt if it was intended to be); rather, it is a a film that will appeal to a more selective audience.
Here can be seen a larger and slightly sharper view of the photo above.
Bobby S: Enlarge each Google map accompanying each theater on the respective pages; if you use the Prospect Park Parade Ground as a point of reference, you will see that they were not all that close to each other; as you noted, Brooklyn is pretty big.
Actually, the big downtown palaces fared reasonably well in the Depression, due to the relatively inexpensive tickets and did well into the 1940’s, though architectural tastes changed, and combination programs of live acts and movie programming became less frequent, eliminating the need for elaborate, fully-equipped stages. Yes, some chain owners like William Fox went bankrupt and some theaters did close and fewer were built.
But there were three major factors that really doomed both the existing and any planned palaces, and all of them occurred after the Great Depression: the 1948 Paramount Consent Decree that forced the major studios to divest themselves of their theater chains, the coming of television, and the exodus of so many people to the suburbs. There was, especially in the 1960’s a relatively brief flowering of large, single screen theaters that might be regarded as sort of second generation palaces, but the arrival of multiplexes eventually doomed many of these or resulted in their being subdivided, in many cases atrociously.
The theater celebrates its 90th birthday: View article
The Bijou Dream can be partially see in this old photograph as the white building next to the Vendome Hotel at the right.
An article about the destruction of this theatre that appeared in the New York Times can be read here.
The above comment relates to the Alvarado-Drive-in which currently does not have an entry here on CT; This Alvarado Theatre was an indoor theater.
Another view of the theatre after it ceased operations as a cinema can be seen here.
16mm prints are disappearing too; the non-profits and schools that used to run them now get licenses to show DVDs.
Joel, when the site was renovated, getting updates requires that you now “subscribe” to the theater(s) which interest you. See below.
An exterior view can be seen here.
Pictures of the theater’s interior can be seen here, here, and here; and there is one of the snack bar here.
The theater was renovated by AAFES/Reel Time Theaters in 2008.
There is a photo of the theater here. Dickinson Theatres filed for bankruptcy reorganization in September, 2012.
Here is a picture of the theater at the Dugway Proving Ground military installation.
This is most likely the the theater in Oklahoma City that this article mentions Dickinson shall be closing as part of its bankruptcy reorganization.