CIBC Theatre
18 W. Monroe Street,
Chicago,
IL
60603
18 W. Monroe Street,
Chicago,
IL
60603
18 people
favorited this theater
Showing 51 - 75 of 83 comments
A few “COMMENTS” about the new LaSalle Bank Theatre…..
I just finshed waching the 190n special on it and here are my comments.
I like the new paint i think that thay did a good job in the auditorium, The seats look soft and comfortable, I do not care for the top of the marquee from my point of view the top of the marquee looks like the grill off of a old car. And i ask this question….
All through the 190n show they kept on saying the the Majestic,Shubert LaSalle Bank Theatre or what ever you want to call it was the oldest theatre at time of compleation is this true?
I mean what about Adler and Sulivans “AUDITORIUM THEATRE” (50 E.Congress PWK.) That whole bulding the hotel and the theatre were compleated in somthing like 1888-1889. Can some one please make some sence out of this for me?
Also i have to ask this question,what is going on with the “Handheld ticket scanners” i my oppnion the scanners are to be used in a venue like a ballpark or some other large venue not in a theatre certany not in a theatre that seats something like 2,000 people.
Just my POV THANK YOU for you time and space.
Well all that i have to say is thank you.
And it is nice to hear that at least the name of the Majestic is going to be used in some form. I have not realy looked at the marquee that well i will have to look for it later or to night when 190n does the show on it,i have heard that the marquee is “something to see”! the reason i think is to get more people over there becuse if you can recall eather in winter or when the weather is bad it is very dark around their and thay want people to be able to find it.
Just a Thought. Thanks
Thank You For Your Time.
Well, Shubert had become something of a misnomer, because the Shubert organization had sold the theater to the Nederlanders (basically their broadway arch-rivals) in the early 90s; however, they never changed the name. The Majestic name hadn’t been used for the theatre since the early 1930s – although the office building had retained it – so there was little pressure to use that, especially considering that the new hotel in the former office building is going to be, I think, Hampton Suites at the Majestic Building. Considering Lasalle Bank was forking over so much to renovate it, it must have seemed fitting to rename it that way. I really don’t like the new marquee, though. It looks goofy and doesn’t really resemble any of the historic marquees except the Shubert one, only with the added odd curvy thing on top. One nice touch, though, is that the bottom of the canopy is modeled after the original metal that had been left in place all those years, exposed during the renovation. [url=http://iconeon.blogspot.com/2006/05/majestic-shubert-lasalle-banktheater.html]Here]Here} is the article i’ve mostly paraphrased that covers it well.
Thank you for explaning now that makes it a bit more lucid to me.
One other thing,do you know if the first name was even thought to be used? The Palace , and The Orential have their “first” names in on the marquee just wondering why the Majestic name or for the mater the shubert names were not kept?
As I see it, a restoration is interested in taking a place as close as feasible to opening day (Really, none of the major downtown Chicago theaters has been FULLY restored). The effect of history and its changes should be mostly invisible. Here, they just tried to make it resemble its original decor; at least on the opening tours, you could see plaster with built-up, chunky paint obscuring detail, poorly painted sections, et cetera, especially in the balcony. They clearly had to rush to make it open, even despite the time overruns. One review of the work noted an inordinate amount of sheetrock. Now, they could have spent 5 times more and done a full restoration. I don’t think that’s really appropriate,and I don’t really have any problem with the job they did- though it would have been cool if they had tried to recreate the long-lost themed bathrooms. It’s a fine house and one Chicago can be proud of.
The show 190n is going to have from what i have ben told a whole show about the theatre to be aired on Sunday June 11th 2006 @ 1035pm(cdt) right after the 10:00pm News cast the show will be named…..
“190 North goes inside the LaSalle Bank Theatre” from what i was told and from what i have seen in the prevews thay are going to go “behind the curtain” type of thing. Thanks for your time if you can watch please do it. thanks again.
Can you tell me what the diferance between a “restoration” and a “historically sensitive renovation”?
Also what is your take on the name “ The LaSalle Bank Theatre”?
It looks far better, but I don’t think it can really be considered a restoration, more a historically sensitive renovation. It looks pretty nice, but there are a few places where you can really see they had to rush.
Sorry if you go to WWW.ABC7Chicago.com it is the 5th tab over marked as “ON ABC7” then it is the 8th show down. Thank You for your time.
I can not agree with you more, i recall the balc. You had to contend with the miles and miles of lighting and video cable there simple was no place or way to hide it,so you had to sit in the seat and hoped that you did not kick the cables by mistake or you might upset the show. But that is just one of the many things that thay fixed.
If i recall right 190north did a show about it. Go to WWW.ABC7Chicago.com or go to 190North.com and look under “Archives” or if you prefer send them an e-mail thay are very good at returning with and answer.
No: but I agree. I was there some years ago to see a show. It looked OK. But when you compare how it looked then with the post-renovation photos it was pretty bad!
Has any one gone to the theatre since it opened it looks great from what the news and the T.V. spots show?
Here’s a few items from today on the renovation. They must have been doing press tours. Looks great! A major difference!
View link
View link
View link
Ok, so tonight I discover that the Majestic (aka Shubert, aka LaSalle Bank Theatre) was designed by at least Cornelius Rapp and maybe both Rapp brothers. This blows the lid off the “earliest” known Rapp and Rapp theatre being the Majestic in Dubuque, Iowa in 1910. Does anyone have any more information on the Majestic in Chicago? I am a real fan of early Rapp and Rapp designs and I can see some design detail similarities with the Majestic and the Al. Rignling Theatre in Baraboo (particularly the broken pediment design over the boxes nearest the proscenium) Does anyone have a good list of early Rapp and Rapp theatres?
View link
Source: MPTV
Caption: Martin Scorsese in front of the Shubert Theater in Chicago Il, 1977.
Regarding GerryC’s comment of the 10th on altruism. Do you think that Loew’s, RKO, Fox, Paramount or any of the old theatre chains were altruistic? They built these places for one reason; TO MAKE MONEY! If some faceless nameless corporation is now willing to restore some theatre for less than altruistic reasons I, for one, am happy about it.
Ok. I give up. Sorry I took up your time.
… and let’s not forget that RKO stands for Radio-Keith-Orpheum. B.F. Keith was a real person, as were the Shuberts.
Shubert is a fine name for a live stage theatre. It evokes over a century of tradition.
Well, to be exact, one could also say that Mr. William Fox, Mr. Marcus Loew, and the brothers named Warner were human beings before their names would refer to homonymous corporations.
We honor humans, not corporations? Ok. Should I bother to list all the well-known names of theatres back in the 1910s and 1920s that were named after corporations? How about Fox, Paramount, RKO, Loew’s, Orpheum, United Artists, Warners, etc. These were all corporations whose names were featured on many a marquee. So that argument doesn’t work. How about the fact you just don’t like corporations getting some sort of benefit? Maybe that’s it. It’s that, or you just don’t like tradition being messed with. Which is fine. I like to keep the original name too if possible. But don’t give bogus reasons for it. And even though I agree with your taxpayer point, let me know how far you get with your Tapayer’s Stadium idea.
The names of Shubert, Field, Wrigley (and yes, Comiskey as well) are names of human beings. We honor humans. Corporations are not human beings. The problem with corporate naming is that they are ‘buying’ legitimacy. Bear in mind the tax write-offs for corporate sponsorship, so maybe those sponsorships are not all that altruistic. Remember when Enron Field in Texas had to be paid to have their name taken OFF the building? My original point was that, because taxpayers are the main contributors (usually to build a new stadiums), why not name it Taxpayers' Stadium?
Well, yeah, exactly, tradition should be preserved, that’s the whole point of theatre restoration. Otherwise, just go ahead and build a new theatre. I certainly have no problem with corporate sponsorship, it’s when corporate ego overtakes the focus of the theatre that it’s problematic. With the Palace and Oriental, the original names maintain the focus- nobody calls it the Ford Center, and I don’t think many call it the Cadillac. They were good comprimises between history and modern economic reality. If you refer to them as Palace, or Oriental, people know what you mean; it would be nice to have the Majestic name known again. But go ahead and let them name it Lasalle Bank Theatre for now; with the way banks are these days, odds are good that it will be something else in 10 years, and maybe the proper name will return then.
Brian – If you had been around in 1926 when it became Wrigley Field would you have complained? Changing the name now to Tribune Field would be an identical act to that. It appears it’s tradition you don’t want changed. I share your preference that the historic name of the building be maintained. Although, the Palace and Oriental names were pretty much obliterated when those theatres were renovated. “The Ford Center for the Performing Arts Oriental Theatre.” Yeah, that really rolls off the tongue. But at least they were renovated. I like what they did at the Coronado in Rockford, IL. It’s still called the Coronado, but there’s a plaque inside designating the auditorium as “The Howard Monk Auditorium”, in honor of the contribution given to the theatre’s renovation. Also, your assumption that demolition wasn’t in the cards is questionable. Do you think the Palace, Oriental, Chicago, Auditorium, and Shubert theatres would all have survived without generous corporate sponsorship? The answer is no, of course. It’s not naming rights, it’s funding of renovation that stirs the drink here as far as I’m concerned. After all, they might get the name, but we get to enjoy the theatres.
By the way, my socialism/liberalism reference, while maybe a stretch, was intended simply to point out how anti-corporate a society we’ve become during the last generation or two. Lots of people complain about them, sometimes legitimately, but they also do a lot of good things. And many of us seem to have no problem working for them.
Well, first off, Wrigley was known as Weeghman Park when it opened in 1916 until 1920 when the Wrigley family bought the Cubs; it had this name until 1926 when it was renamed in honor of Wrigley. What we would find objectionable would be if it was renamed Chicago Tribune Park, since they own the Cubs now. So that example really doesn’t hold. Lasalle Bank doesn’t even own the theatre.
We all understand the reasoning behind selling naming rights, as it’s a lucrative business; two of Chicago’s other centers are the Cadillac Palace (originally New Palace) and Ford Center for the Performing Arts Oriental Theatre (Oriental Theatre). These are okay, because they respect the historical names of the theatre. Corporate sponsorship has become a necessary evil. It crosses the line, however, when it does not respect the historic name of the theatre. If you are restoring the rest of the theatre to its original state, why not also restore the name? If LaSalle Bank owned the theatre, as the Shuberts did, sure. But the name Majestic was chosen to reflect the palatial character of the theatre; it was lost when it was renamed Shubert. The Oriental or Palace might not have as much impact if they did not have these names reinforcing the nature of the architecture.
I can’t see what this has to do with liberalism or socialism, and it’s not a question of the theatre being in danger of demolition. It’s a question of preservation; if you’re going to restore it to its former glory, then do it.
I don’t understand why people get upset over the naming of a theatre. While I would certainly prefer the Majestic, or the Shubert, you can’t expect companies to give millions of dollars to a project like this without receiving something in return. LaSalle Bank isn’t obligated to contribute anything, so they deserve to have their name on it if they like. It’s a small price for us to pay to have the theatre brought back to life. Funny, the name Wrigley Field never seemed to bother anybody. I suppose this sort of contempt for corporate naming should be expected with the domination of liberalism/socialism in our culture.
I live in Cincinnati, and we used to have a Shubert Theatre too. It was torn down in 1976. I wish it was still here. And I wish it was called Procter & Gamble Theatre.