That’s an old photo from after the theater was closed but before the Rock Church replaced the marquee and removed the rest of the exterior ornamentation.
At least the Tribune seems to have some grasp of the facts, unlike the Courier. Ross Barkan actually notes that the theater has fallen into “disrepair” instead of acting like it no longer exists, acknowledges the efforts of preservationists, and never even mentions that PR crap about “preserving” the lobby. A far cry from the pathetic “journalism” of Melissa Chan — who never bothered to respond.
I’m still unclear on where a non-profit group is getting the money to buy the building and completely rebuild it, but it’s better than the alternative. As for what’s inside — I doubt there’s much to see. It’s empty offices.
The truly absurd part of this story is that the Ridgefield Playhouse, if it reopens, can’t be called the Ridgefield Playhouse, because there’s now another Ridgefield Playhouse, which was originally the old high school auditorium. Which begs the question: If this foundation has the money to buy the original and rebuild it as a triplex, couldn’t they allow the current Ridgefield Playhouse, which is also a struggling non-profit, to co-occupy the old one and change the name back, rather than attempt to get the town to support TWO non-profit theaters?
New developments on the old Ridgefield Playhouse, which could be resurrected under a new name:
http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15/theridgefieldpress/news/localnews/119646-three-screen-theater-will-be-hearing-tuesday.html
That is a wonderfully succinct summation of everything that is wrong with this project.
As for the machinations surrounding whether investment partners have or have not been found — it sure sounds like Fred Wilpon and the Mets are involved! Must be the water in Queens…
Thanks for the heads-up! Found it in the Queens Chronicle:
Posted: Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:22 pm
by Liz Rhoades
Rumors are flying around Flushing that the latest owner of the RKO Keith’s Theatre has put the property on the market.
The star-crossed plan for 357 apartment units, 360 underground parking spaces and retail space seems to be on hold once again — but nothing could immediately be confirmed. The latest owner, Patrick Thompson, a Manhattan developer, bought the Northern Boulevard property in 2010 for $20 million. Flushing officials say they’ve heard that it’s been on the market for about a month.
Thompson even got a variance to amend the 2005 one, adding additional apartments and parking. The plan also calls for a senior center and retention of the landmarked lobby and ticket booth.
Attempts to reach Thompson were not successful.
The theater was built in 1928 and closed in 1987 after it was bought by Thomas Huang, who wanted to convert it into a shopping mall. When his plans were thwarted by the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission, Huang sat on the property and allowed it to deteriorate and partially bulldozed one of the landmarked staircases.
Huang sold the property to a Brooklyn developer in 2002, who ran out of money and sold the Keith’s to Thompson.
A kick to the stomach? Yes, but to those who’ve been following this story for a while, it’s not a kick caused by seeing what has become of the auditorium, but by seeing how much of the auditorium is still intact and salvageable despite decades of deliberate destruction and neglect — and will be lost if the party line about the place being “beyond saving” is followed and its demolition is finally allowed.
It’s odd that it’s still being advertised as Jackson Triplex, since the 2010 Daily News story specifically said it was being renamed Jackson Heights Cinema. Did they perhaps delay the renaming until the new equipment, also referred to in that story, was installed?
Paradise, my belabored point is that there has never been the slightest roadblock placed by any city or community official to hinder the development of this property. The only thing that has held it up is the poor planning of the developers themselves, who have repeatedly miscalculated the market, the financial environment, and their own resources. And, of course, the greed of the original property owner, who did such damage to the property — including dumping heating oil in the basement — in an apparent effort to see to it that there would be no choice but to demolish the theatre, that he added monumental additional costs to the project. If there is indeed “a substantial amount of hostility on the part of many citizens of Flushing” toward the current owner, so what? He may legally be able to do whatever he wants in exercising his property rights, but that doesn’t mean he has a right to be loved as well! Are you suggesting he has property rights but we don’t have rights to free speech or even our own feelings of hostility? Let’s not forget that we do not have property rights in a vacuum. We have zoning laws, building regulations, and (abused and weak though they may be) landmarks preservation laws, all of which were specifically enacted in an attempt to reign in the unfettered exercise of property rights without any regard for others. Without such laws, you don’t have a city; you have chaos. Or Queens.
Paradise, your comments are quite odd. First you respond to a post saying the FAA shot down the developer’s plan…then you say you didn’t realize the FAA was involved. Perhaps you weren’t responding to that particular post and it was just a coincidence…yet you say you haven’t been following the theatre for months. Then you say you “assumed” the city was denying the property owner his rights…when there has never been the slightest indication on this site or elsewhere that anybody from the city or the community board has ever objected to anything that was proposed — period. You ask whether the developer should “be denied the ability to pursue a legal coarse (sic) of action…simply because it is not consistent with the wishes of certain disinterested individuals?” And those “disinterested” individuals would be who — those of us on this site who have been critical of the plans? If anything, we’ve expressed more of an “interest” in this property than most of those in the area who don’t seem to care what happens to it. Your entire argument seems to center around developers' property rights — no matter what the property, the history, the surroundings, or the alternatives. You appear to have dropped in on the discussion simply to express your belief in the absolute sanctity of property rights, and despite your lukewarm assertion that you “admire” the RKO Keith’s, I find that questionable. There have been numerous arguments raised here having nothing to do with the theatre itself, but about the density, overcrowding and traffic problems of this neighborhood and how this project can only make those worse. So I ask you, is there anything a developer could propose to do in order to squeeze as much profit out of a piece of property as possible, to which you WOULD object? Or is it enough to say “Money talks, everybody else walks”?
Paradise, you’re missing the point. The city had nothing to do with this — it was the FAA. The height of his proposed building violated LaGuardia airspace.
But your point is well taken. Let’s allow every property owner to do whatever they wish with their property to generate income (oh, wait — isn’t that what’s already happening in Queens? Have you visited Queens Crap or Forgotten NY lately?), or be compensated by the city. Of course, “the city” means your taxes.
Yes, I’m referring to that original POLK AVE marquee. The first picture on the photo page shows it (apparently in 1938, since Little Miss Roughneck was released in January 1938 and Squadron of Honor in June 1938) and that lettering looks absolutely gorgeous. The more modern block neon was okay, but nowhere near as evocative as what I suspect was hidden under the metal sheathing. Wish I’d been able to find out if it was, indeed, under there when they tore it all down.
Not only does the status need to be changed to Demolished, the description should be amended. While the name was displayed in “large red-neon block letters” in more recent decades, historical photos posted previously show the original marquee, later hidden beneath that shiny metal covering, had gloriously sleek art deco neon lettering stretched across its entire length.
Wow…did that happen today? The buildings have been fenced off and were being worked on for months…I suspect they were removing asbestos. That’s it then… within about a month of Marcus Dairy being demolished; two Danbury landmarks bite the dust.
Great link! Note it wasn’t simply called the Queensboro Theatre — it was the Queensboro Theatre Beautiful.
That’s an old photo from after the theater was closed but before the Rock Church replaced the marquee and removed the rest of the exterior ornamentation.
The UA Lefrak was also within walking distance.
At least the Tribune seems to have some grasp of the facts, unlike the Courier. Ross Barkan actually notes that the theater has fallen into “disrepair” instead of acting like it no longer exists, acknowledges the efforts of preservationists, and never even mentions that PR crap about “preserving” the lobby. A far cry from the pathetic “journalism” of Melissa Chan — who never bothered to respond.
I just posted a scathing comment to that Queens Courier story. Let’s see what Melissa Chan has to say in reply!
I’m still unclear on where a non-profit group is getting the money to buy the building and completely rebuild it, but it’s better than the alternative. As for what’s inside — I doubt there’s much to see. It’s empty offices. The truly absurd part of this story is that the Ridgefield Playhouse, if it reopens, can’t be called the Ridgefield Playhouse, because there’s now another Ridgefield Playhouse, which was originally the old high school auditorium. Which begs the question: If this foundation has the money to buy the original and rebuild it as a triplex, couldn’t they allow the current Ridgefield Playhouse, which is also a struggling non-profit, to co-occupy the old one and change the name back, rather than attempt to get the town to support TWO non-profit theaters?
New developments on the old Ridgefield Playhouse, which could be resurrected under a new name: http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15/theridgefieldpress/news/localnews/119646-three-screen-theater-will-be-hearing-tuesday.html
That is a wonderfully succinct summation of everything that is wrong with this project.
As for the machinations surrounding whether investment partners have or have not been found — it sure sounds like Fred Wilpon and the Mets are involved! Must be the water in Queens…
Thanks for the heads-up! Found it in the Queens Chronicle:
Posted: Thursday, March 8, 2012 5:22 pm by Liz Rhoades Rumors are flying around Flushing that the latest owner of the RKO Keith’s Theatre has put the property on the market. The star-crossed plan for 357 apartment units, 360 underground parking spaces and retail space seems to be on hold once again — but nothing could immediately be confirmed. The latest owner, Patrick Thompson, a Manhattan developer, bought the Northern Boulevard property in 2010 for $20 million. Flushing officials say they’ve heard that it’s been on the market for about a month. Thompson even got a variance to amend the 2005 one, adding additional apartments and parking. The plan also calls for a senior center and retention of the landmarked lobby and ticket booth. Attempts to reach Thompson were not successful. The theater was built in 1928 and closed in 1987 after it was bought by Thomas Huang, who wanted to convert it into a shopping mall. When his plans were thwarted by the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission, Huang sat on the property and allowed it to deteriorate and partially bulldozed one of the landmarked staircases. Huang sold the property to a Brooklyn developer in 2002, who ran out of money and sold the Keith’s to Thompson.
SWC really has done an incredible job of singlehandedly documenting the Keith’s architectural details. He deserves an award, or something.
A kick to the stomach? Yes, but to those who’ve been following this story for a while, it’s not a kick caused by seeing what has become of the auditorium, but by seeing how much of the auditorium is still intact and salvageable despite decades of deliberate destruction and neglect — and will be lost if the party line about the place being “beyond saving” is followed and its demolition is finally allowed.
“Jackson Heights Triplex” would be more specific. “Jackson Triplex” could be in Jackson, Mississippi!
It’s odd that it’s still being advertised as Jackson Triplex, since the 2010 Daily News story specifically said it was being renamed Jackson Heights Cinema. Did they perhaps delay the renaming until the new equipment, also referred to in that story, was installed?
Paradise, my belabored point is that there has never been the slightest roadblock placed by any city or community official to hinder the development of this property. The only thing that has held it up is the poor planning of the developers themselves, who have repeatedly miscalculated the market, the financial environment, and their own resources. And, of course, the greed of the original property owner, who did such damage to the property — including dumping heating oil in the basement — in an apparent effort to see to it that there would be no choice but to demolish the theatre, that he added monumental additional costs to the project. If there is indeed “a substantial amount of hostility on the part of many citizens of Flushing” toward the current owner, so what? He may legally be able to do whatever he wants in exercising his property rights, but that doesn’t mean he has a right to be loved as well! Are you suggesting he has property rights but we don’t have rights to free speech or even our own feelings of hostility? Let’s not forget that we do not have property rights in a vacuum. We have zoning laws, building regulations, and (abused and weak though they may be) landmarks preservation laws, all of which were specifically enacted in an attempt to reign in the unfettered exercise of property rights without any regard for others. Without such laws, you don’t have a city; you have chaos. Or Queens.
Paradise, your comments are quite odd. First you respond to a post saying the FAA shot down the developer’s plan…then you say you didn’t realize the FAA was involved. Perhaps you weren’t responding to that particular post and it was just a coincidence…yet you say you haven’t been following the theatre for months. Then you say you “assumed” the city was denying the property owner his rights…when there has never been the slightest indication on this site or elsewhere that anybody from the city or the community board has ever objected to anything that was proposed — period. You ask whether the developer should “be denied the ability to pursue a legal coarse (sic) of action…simply because it is not consistent with the wishes of certain disinterested individuals?” And those “disinterested” individuals would be who — those of us on this site who have been critical of the plans? If anything, we’ve expressed more of an “interest” in this property than most of those in the area who don’t seem to care what happens to it. Your entire argument seems to center around developers' property rights — no matter what the property, the history, the surroundings, or the alternatives. You appear to have dropped in on the discussion simply to express your belief in the absolute sanctity of property rights, and despite your lukewarm assertion that you “admire” the RKO Keith’s, I find that questionable. There have been numerous arguments raised here having nothing to do with the theatre itself, but about the density, overcrowding and traffic problems of this neighborhood and how this project can only make those worse. So I ask you, is there anything a developer could propose to do in order to squeeze as much profit out of a piece of property as possible, to which you WOULD object? Or is it enough to say “Money talks, everybody else walks”?
Paradise, you’re missing the point. The city had nothing to do with this — it was the FAA. The height of his proposed building violated LaGuardia airspace.
But your point is well taken. Let’s allow every property owner to do whatever they wish with their property to generate income (oh, wait — isn’t that what’s already happening in Queens? Have you visited Queens Crap or Forgotten NY lately?), or be compensated by the city. Of course, “the city” means your taxes.
I need more popcorn.
Quote of the Week: “It’s approved and in compliance. Community Board 7 would not have approved it if it were not,” said Nussbaum.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha… cough.
Yes, I’m referring to that original POLK AVE marquee. The first picture on the photo page shows it (apparently in 1938, since Little Miss Roughneck was released in January 1938 and Squadron of Honor in June 1938) and that lettering looks absolutely gorgeous. The more modern block neon was okay, but nowhere near as evocative as what I suspect was hidden under the metal sheathing. Wish I’d been able to find out if it was, indeed, under there when they tore it all down.
Wow, look at that utter devastation! What a shame there is “nothing left” of the auditorium worth preserving…
p.s. For what it’s worth (not much) my comment did, indeed, get posted at Queens Chronicle.
Not only does the status need to be changed to Demolished, the description should be amended. While the name was displayed in “large red-neon block letters” in more recent decades, historical photos posted previously show the original marquee, later hidden beneath that shiny metal covering, had gloriously sleek art deco neon lettering stretched across its entire length.
Thanks for those! It appears they did take down the theater first. Drove by today…looks like it’s nearly all gone.
Wow…did that happen today? The buildings have been fenced off and were being worked on for months…I suspect they were removing asbestos. That’s it then… within about a month of Marcus Dairy being demolished; two Danbury landmarks bite the dust.
I’ve submitted a response comment on Queens Chronicle; we’ll see if it gets approved and posted.
Sorry again; this seems like deja vu. I must be developing fatal degradation of my sarcasm meter.