Alameda Theatre
2317 Central Avenue,
Alameda,
CA
94501
2317 Central Avenue,
Alameda,
CA
94501
25 people
favorited this theater
Showing 76 - 100 of 122 comments
Wow what beautiful pictures! I had no idea it was in such good condition even in the 70’s. It’s hard to imagine how something so gorgeous can deteriorate so quickly.
Try this link for a slideshow of 20 historic photographs:
http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/theater/overview.html
Yes, I have belonged to Alameda Architectural Preservation Society for 20 years since I moved to Alameda and my husband has belonged even longer, 32 years; of course it was called AVPS then because it was started to stop the destruction of Victorian buildings. The entire block does not have the setbacks of the buildings civic buildings pink describes— it has the setback of the commercial block it is next to on Park Street. Twin Towers is also not set back. I totally disagree there is any problem with the massing.
the problem with the megaplex and garage is not only height but massing. Anything built on this corner needs to match the massing of the surrounding buildings and have setbacks to match the Historic High school and other civic buildings. kbb who claims to belong to the architectural preservation society should know better. also, the city is citing the zoning ordinance requirement for building to the property line as if it is the bible and not willing to concede on setbacks, at the same time they are allowing a height exceding the zoning height by 45%! The mass of these buildings will completely drown everything in the immediate neighborhood, and turn Oak Street into a canyon. You don’t need to wait and see, just imagine. Take a slow walk down Oak street and visualize the 6 story garage. I guarantee you that if they build it, kbb, you would hate it too, but it would be too late. The saddest part is that the so called Planning department knows and cares nothing about city planning and is solid in the pockets of developers and other real estate sharks, while those who do and are trying to do something about their town are marginalized and labeled crazies. sad!
New Web site: http://www.savealamedatheater.com .
It’s true there is plenty of land for a theater on the base, but the traffic issues are even worse. Access is only through the tube at that end of town.
As far as the historic, folksy feel of the Oak/Central/Park— I can only say that historic Alameda was very tall— there was a huge tower on City Hall, also one on the building where Starbucks is now. I don’t see why the cineplex extension isn’t being considered an improvement to the existing streetscape as the building itself will fit in better with the surroundings than a weedy parking lot! Also, they are presently changing the design as directed by City Council to make it more compatible with the surrounding buildings, while still complying with the SHPO requirements to be clearly differentiated from the historic building.
Wouldn’t the base be a better site for a megaplex? For one thing, access from outside Alameda would be easier — take the tube, turn right on Atlantic, then down to the cineplex — and would pose far less traffic for the rest of the island. Access from within the island would be via Atlantic, Lincoln, Central. Plenty of options. Good public trans. can also move people up & down the lsland. Transmogrifying the historic theater into a multiplex with a six story parking garage attached would pose problems on all fronts: aesthetic, environmental, and economic. Aesthetically, it would ruin the historic, folksy feel of Oak/Central and Park while also obliterating the existing horizon and clashing with surroundings. Environmentally, there’s increased traffic, noise, competition for parking, and the general disruption attracted by that kind of impersonal, mall atmosphere. In short, quality of life deteriorates. Economically, how will the thing pay for itself if tickets aren’t taxable and the lease is so cheap? The trend is away from multiplexes now, especially with home entertainment taking over. The proposed garage can’t support a full house — and that is assuming that the place draws. The result: cars search for parking in the already crowded neighborhood and among the reduced curbside spaces. It’s lose-lose: the original theater gets lost in the project; attendance at 6 C-grade movies and one B-grade film is likely to follow the existing, downward trend; and the community suffers more cars, noise, bad air, and congestion. The unique flavor of the area gets replaced by an anywhere-USA, generic landscape.
Put a multi-plex on the base, restore the Alameda Theater in the mode of the Grand Lake and Orinda — subdivide the upstairs into two small boxes, restoring the big one down stairs to its retro glory — and get someone who knows what they’re doing to operate it. Instead of a six-level garage, make it three, shoving one underground. The solution to the rest of the parking scarcity is satellite lots.
The most compelling argument I’ve heard in favor of the megaplex is that parents don’t like hauling kids or family off the island for a movie. Safety is an issue. Absolutely. And to that I would say that a three-screen mini-plex, properly run, is the answer. Meanwhile, Jack London and Emeryville (2 complexes there) are much closer and/or more easily accessible than the megaplexes that families further out in the east bay must travel for a movie. Let CineArts operate a three-screen, putting family or kid films on the two smaller screens and ‘art’ films on the big one. When the art film’s crowd tapers off, move it to one of the small boxes and screen an occasional kid or family film in the main theater. It can be done.
I have followed the fate of the theater for 20 some years, and have read everything on the stopmegaplex site— there is nothing new there, and lots of misinformation. My question about these various proposals that supposedly arose in the last three years— why didn’t they get something together prior to that? After 2000, it was quite apparent that redevelopment funds were going to be used.
Once the city signed an exclusive negotiating agreement, in 2002 I believe, how exactly would they negotiate with someone else without being sued?
The other actual proposals that came around in about 1995 and 1997 were including extra screens, off to the side, just like this proposal. At the time, the city was unwilling to spend redevelopment money to solve the parking problem, so neither of those proposals went through because of the city’s failure to solve that issue.
Obviously, pink, you disagree that having a cineplex downtown can be an anchor project that increases sales in the rest of downtown. I feel it can be, and if you have been to downtown Hayward and downtown San Jose, there is quite a difference between those cities in terms of what they did there and how the place feels than there is and will be in Park Street downtown, my neighborhood. Also, the city is not buying the Cinematecs company’s equipment— the developer has to spend $1.2 million of his own money at minimum on it, so since it is his own company I am sure he can get more for less. He is financing $7.2 million of the project privately and borrowing $2.4 million from the city, so I would disagree that he is not putting “a penny” into the project. The city needs and operator for the theater— they don’t want to be it themselves— and Conner is available and stuck with the project when the other partner, Atlas, dropped out. All these people who say that they have a proposal that is financially sound— I say, put the details on the stopmegaplex site and I will look at them— meanwhile, I want this project to save the theater.
Dear kbb, you are well meaning but deceived. Let me start by saying that there have been offers to operate the theater as exactly the 1-3 screen theater envisioned by citizens, showing first run and other films. The people making the offers were told to wait, until the City hammered out the sweetheart deal with the developer, and then it was all over. You can see the details on www.stopalamedamegaplex.com I suggest you educate yourself by reading the rest of the site too. Second, Conner (the developer) is not going to do anything in the old theater except install the stadium seating about which you are not thrilled, and the projection equipment (his primary business is selling theater equipment, get it? http://www.cinematecs.com/products.htm)) The City is going to foot the entire bill for the proposed work on the theater. Can you explain why they need Conner? He is not putting in a pennyâ€"in fact he is borrowing from the City (on very good terms) to build his multiplex. Oh, I knowâ€"because we’ve been told that a 3-screen theater would not be successful unless there are 7 more C-rated movies to choose from? Let’s talk about what successful means to who? The multiplex makes sense for Conner because it would increase his bottom line (more screens, more time movies play, bigger percentage for him). It doesn’t make sense to the City to have a multiplex builtâ€"more screens will not put more money into City’s coffers, unlesss the City was the operator (and neither will they bring the revitalization PSBA hopes forâ€"see Hayward, San Jose, etc. for spectacular failures) . There is no sales tax from movie tickets, so it doesn’t matter to the City how many screens are there really. The only sales tax comes from concessions. Granted, more screens, more popcorn sold, but can you really justify the subsidy of a begemoth multiplex just to get the sales tax on the popcorn?! the point is, kbb, that the City is helping a private developer make money by subsidizing his project with public bonds, and not expecting anything back, or rather expecting a net loss in the millions. They admitted this much at the City Council meeting on August 16. Remember Marie Gillmore going on and on how the City must invest the money in the old theater, she called it an albatross, in order to fulfil the desire of the people? This begs the very reasonable question, if that’s the case, why spend even more on a multiplex? Give the people what they wantâ€"the Theater restoredâ€"and send Conner to ruin somebody else’s town. One of the offers which I mentioned earlier was proposing to lease the theater and resore it over time at their own expense. They were apparently confident they would be successful. Don’t you think that if the theater is already partially restored, as the City proposes to do, it’d be even easier to find someone to complete it and run itâ€"especially if they got the very low lease the City is offering Conner? i guarantee you that if the original solicitation specified the amount of public subsidy of the project, including theater parking, the City propbably would have gotten a very different response. The game has changedâ€"public money is now being used to restore the theater, and the public should have the final say as to what else, if anything, they want to spend it on. One thing you gor right, kbb, is that the public is quite capable of ousting their reps for fiscal reasonsâ€"except that the reasons are not the hypothetical ones you list, but the ones specified in the contract with Conner. You can read that too at www.stopalamedamegaplex.com
There is now a Web site, friendsofalamedatheater.org , for the rehabilitation project.
I just looked at the pictures of the interior of the Egyptian on the architects site— Yech! It does look terrible. In the case of the Alameda, buffer walls were put in for the roller rink which will be removed and the ornamentation is behind them. The walls of the auditorium are to be preserved— the niches will be cleaned and some metal leaf reapplied at water damage areas and light fixtures restored. There are going to be some acoustical panels installed on the concrete piers for THX rating. But my understanding is that the side walls and the proscenium arch, orchestra pit and stage will look much the same as they originally did, except some worn because they are not being restored, just cleaned and preserved. There are some good old pictures at http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/theater/overview.html , follow the links to “Historical Photos.” So there will be stadium seating put in, yes, but the modernistic stuff of the Egyptian on the walls is not to be put in the Alameda. The new concession stand will be under the balcony, as in the Egyptian.
Yes, they are using federal grants— that is part of the 9 million. Restoring the marquee is in the budget, and the interior light fixtures. There are lots of things they are missing, though, some chandeliers were used in the Paramount restoration, there is a large mirror from the lobby or the mezzanine that is missing. A lot of the expense is for seismic, a lot of it for ripping out the cement slab poured for the roller rink without damaging anything, and also to find a leak and repair water damage that has probably been continuous for a number of years. It has not been a working theater for 26 years—was the El Capitan ever vacant? I understand that the whole concrete facade is held up by 4 redwood posts. I am not thrilled about the stadium seating either, but there is no reason it couldn’t be ripped out and sloped seating installed later. The restoration standards specify that it must be removable without damaging the historic features.
The Alameda theatre should look pretty good if the city is going to spend 8-9 million on the restoration. Disney spent 6 million on ripping out the 1940’s modern design and restored the 1920’s architecture on the El Capitan in Hollywood ten years ago.I can’t believe fixing the holes in the ceiling is not in the budget. Has the City applied for federal grants to help with the restoration. Im not happy about the stadium seating being put in the main auditorium I think slope seating along the lines of the original would be more appropriate. Stadium seating was put in the Egyptian in Hollywood and it looks horrible. The front part of the balcony was never divided, the box theatres were built in the rear of the balcony. The Alameda ceiling and walls seem to be a simple deco design which could easily be restored. Is most of the money being spent on ripping out the roller rink floor and putting in stadium seating?. The last film I saw at the Alameda was back in 1974 “Thats Entertainment”. I hope restoring the marquee is in the budget. Good luck to everyone I hope the theatre is headed in the right direction.brucec
OK, Mr. Faulkner, do you really live in the UK or are you here in Alameda? If you were here five years ago, or had read my previous posts you would know that the city went through an extensive, and totally democratic process to come up with this idea. The outcome of the public hearings and workshops called “Downtown Visioning” which took place in 2000 was that the reopening of the Alameda Theater AS A PLACE FOR FIRST RUN MOVIES (my emphasis) was the top priority for revitalization of downtown. Since then, the city searched high and low for someone who would be able to do that. First they tried to find someone to open a one to three screen in the original— no takers. Existing one to three screens are not doing well right now— and this one needs a lot of work. So fortunately there is land next door where a modern cineplex can be built, and that is the proposal that has been negotiated for three years to come up with something workable for the whole package, theater restoration/rehabilitation, modern cineplex, and parking garage. There are no big surprises here. If the city spent $25-$30 million to restore the theater exactly the way it was, and was able to lease it to a movie operator at the going rate of $1.30/square foot, that would give only about $26,000 per year, and that is provided the city could find an operator for it, not a guarantee. It is currently rented at only about $2000/year. If the city voted to do this and then spent another $8 million for the necessary parking garage, I guarantee that Alamedans would go wild and oust their reps from office for fiscal reasons. This proposal allows Alameda to spend only $9 million for the theater restoration, the developer spends another $8-9 million on the cineplex, the city spends $8 million on the parking garage, and owns the theater, the parking garage, and the land under the cineplex. Nothing will be ruined, according to the preservation consultants, there are holes (not giant holes) in the ceiling, but not the roof, that may not be repaired right away because it is not in the budget, and because of budget we will not be able to apply the original gold leaf finishes on interiors. Oh, and another thing, having the cineplex next door will allow compliance with ADA without having to have ramps inside the historic building compromising the original architecture. It is in no way a desecration, it is a start. City Council requested modifications to the cineplex building exterior to make it less modern-looking on Tuesday.
Gee whiz, just because I agree with a lot of other Alamedans that is an ill-conceived and foolish approach to a restoration I’m supposed to stump up $15 million and pay for it myself?!!! Get a life.
There is a lot of objection to this project and it’s getting louder. There are a lot of local politics interfering with the issue of restoring this priceless gem. It is blatantly obvious that the city council has raced into this current incarnation and is being led down the path by the developers. The developers are being given big cash incentives and the city council believe they have made a good decision but its been made in haste and was their only option. There were no other developers approached since the previous attempt failed in the 1990s. This project is rotten at the core and the site is being leased to developers for a ridiculously low rate of 9c per square foot. The council feel that they will make big bucks from movie admissions to cover their investment. The figures they are using are artificially high have don’t take into account the BIG downturn in attendances. I though part of the point in doing it this way was for the funds made at the box office by the City Council were supposed to finance further so-called restoration. I can see this won’t be happening for some time.
The whole point of my raising these issues is that it affects the quality of the restoration as this IS Cinema Treasures. You only get one good crack at it. Lets start with how do you justify building a hideous eyesore around a listed building? Just because over the years small low-level businesses have become run down they have to be replaced with something so inappropriate as this ineptly designed multiplex? Then the City Council claim loudly this is improving downtown. Having a city official defend the project last week by saying “I truly believe that this is the best plan we’re capable of doing.†is pretty desperate.
Then you take the original graceful and unique building and you really desecrate it. If you compromise it first off you spend more time and lots more money down the line getting it right. How is putting a 480 seat cinema inside an area that once seated 2000 a good place to start? How is seating in in a style that is modern appropriate to the deco style you are supposed to be restoring? Then you neglect the rest of the building or hide it.There are massive holes in the ceiling that aren’t even going to be repaired! Then the developers have so little faith in the building that you punch holes in it so that people are forced to enter the main building to get into the multiplex. Guess which part gets most restored? The Lobby, because that leads to the multiplex. To top it all off you call it a ‘restoration’ and a lot of fools believe you. What is sorely needed here is some respect for this once grand theatre and a total rethink.
Thankfully there are several organisations in Alameda who are not fooled. stopalamedamegaplex.com and alamedadailynews.com are both at the forefront of asking why this has gone so far and how to raise objections. I suggest the poster of the above, kbb try those for a dose of reality.
I really don’t understand the previous comment about this being a desecration. There is now a site put up by the city that tells about the project at http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/theater/ . All of the work is being done according to National Trust for Historic Preservation guidelines. There is no way that the city can get the historic preservation grants that are needed if anything is done that ruins the theater. I love the Paramount and would love to see the theater completely restored— that day may come, but this project gets us partway there. If Mr. Faulkner would like to donate the additional $15 million or so that is needed for complete restoration, I am sure that we here in Alameda would appreciate it. I am not thrilled about the design of the new buildings next door, but they will replace an ugly weedy surface parking lot and a schlocky former hamburger stand. I have followed the fate of the theater for more than 20 years— this is our chance to save it. There is a better 2000 seat venue for stage performances one block away from this theater and we in Alameda sit in the shadow of San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley when it comes to regional stage performances. Our Alameda Civic Light Opera cannot even support itself on ticket prices and low rent, let alone support a multi-million dollar theater restoration! I resent the comments about the City Council pulling the wool over our eyes— the whole project has been conceived and negotiated in response to citizen request. Without the city’s redevelopment bonds, nothing would be happening with the theater except its continued deterioration. The past has been a desecration— you should see the inside of the theater currently, it’s a disgrace— and this project will save the building and its historic features. The stadium seating is removable if fashions in seating change. The original seating is not available.
Alameda has a rare jewel of a theatre. Designed by a famous local architect whose stylistic brilliance is responsible for the unprecedented flair of the nearby Oakland Paramount. The Alameda shares many architectural features with its famous sister-theatre and the building has suffered over the years but is basically sound. Still sitting proud above all the street level shops surrounding it. Whilst the City Council is trying to regenerate the downtown area they have no real faith in the building itself. If they did they would not be attempting this dreadfully ill-conceived and half-baked restoration. The building is not huge. Originally only seating just over 2000 people in art deco splendor.
The proposal is to restore elements of the original theatre (alarm bells ringing yet?) by reopening the original front orchestra section (a proposed 400+ seats!). They claim to be restoring the area that can be seen from those seats facing the proscenium and above. The balcony will remain unrestored with its two 1970’s box cinemas not planned for re-use…. but possibly in the future. The orchestra section will have the roller skating rink floor taken out and replaced with a stadium seating floor (?!) The lobby will be restored faithfully with the addition of new ticket office, merchandise area and candy counters. Some of this will be placed underneath the balcony section. The beautiful upper lobby and mezzanine lounge left closed. There will then be holes punched through the outer walls to allow access to the hideous multiplex and associated car park they plan to build next door. The graceful façade, marquee and blade sign, restored, but now joined to a multiplex and car park building that are so far from discreet and harmonious, you wonder if the new architects have ever seen the original building!
In what world is this any sort of restoration? What is the point of even calling this a restoration if there isn’t a single aspect of it that is not compromised in some way. Its high time the City of Alameda woke up to the real horror that is about to wreck this rare gem. The City Council should hang their heads in shame for even suggesting such an ill-conceived scheme to denigrate the centrepiece of their revitalised downtown. If the project is as vital as they keep proclaiming it to be, have enough faith to restore the whole theatre for starters. Alameda is not such a small city is cannot support another large community venue. The original theatre can be used for multiple uses as well as showing occasional films. Build the multiplex and car park if you must but let it sit gracefully alongside the original building, contributing to it architecturally as well as economically, it IS possible.
Citizens of Alameda please stop letting the City Council and others fool you into believing this is a restoration, it is the desecration of a very worthwhile part of your community.
It is true that when the city sent our the RFP they carefully selected who they would send it to, including Landmark Theaters, because it was important to find someone who would be interested in the historic theater restoration as a theater. This was because of a huge mistake they made earlier when they did go out to the big list of shopping center developers— that resulted in the proposal of Trammel Crow, from Texas, to take over four blocks including the theater block and develop them to be like every other shopping district around— complete with a Borders in the historic theater! Not one of those shopping center developers was interested in putting a theater in the theater! The outrage over this plan is what led to the Downtown Visioning process, where most of us who participated wanted a movie theater in the theater. So why should they have sent their RFP to the same people who wanted to ruin our downtown?
Kyle Conner has stuck with the process while the other developer, Atlas, pulled out over a year ago. And I don’t know who the developer is that is to restore the Oakland Fox, but the funding situation for that project is not great— please go to the Friends of the Oakland Fox site http://www.foxoakland.org for details. And contrary to what is being said, the developer has to put in at least $7.2 million according to the DDA. Yes, go to the www.alamedadailynews.com and look at the pictures of the proposal— on the Central Avenue elevation the Alameda Theater is only shown as a corner of itself on the right, but you can clearly see the cineplex part is not as tall as even the lowest corner of the Alameda Theater. The other proposals in the past were not “blown off”; the Michaan proposal in the mid ‘90’s got quite far but broke down over the parking problem, is my recollection. There were several hearings on it. I don’t know of any other proposals that were “blown off” other than Trammel Crow, which was run out of town by citizen objections.
The City may have put a lot of energy into finding the current developer but doesn’t look like they put much effort into finding anyone else. The list they sent the Request for Proposals is pitifulâ€"it almost looks like it was designed not to get a response. Two major developers accross the estuary in Oakland, one of them restoring the Fox, haven’t even heard of it! I simply don’t buy the notion that there aren’t other options. There have been proposals in the past, and the City blew them off. If you read www.alamedadailynews.com you will know that things can happen even now with the Theater if the monster project stops. Besides, if Kyle Conner is such a great guy why are we paying for everything, and giving him a grant to boot? Oh yeah, and why does he get to equip the theaters, basically selling his own service to himself? Who is he, Haliburton?! Heck, if the City gave me such a sweet deal I’d quit my day job and restore the Theater myself! As far as the visioning goes, I remember that too. People voted to restore the old theater, not for this bloated plan. I’d hate to see the disappointment of these folks if the project goes through. Half of a historic theater and a monster attachment looks more like a nightmare than a vision to me. I hope that the chance of tearing down the multiplex if it doesn’t work out is not the only thing helping people make up their minds.
There is now a petition for people who support the current plans to restore the Alameda and put up a cineplex next to it for more screens, along with the parking garage. You can get to it at View link
I don’t know if it will help devildoll feel any better, but in the draft development agreement it is specified that the multiplex is supposed to be designed so that its eventual removal would not damage the historic theater at all.
Planning Board put some conditions and changes on their approval of the project, such as breaking up the large cast concrete panels on the sides, eliminating the sort of tower on the corner, changing the window treatments, etc., that may help with the overall look of the cineplex.
Also, look around Park Street. There are many really tall buildings— the Masonic Temple (JavaRama on the street level), the historic high school, City Hall itself. The project replaces an ugly former drive-in and asphalt parking lot, and the wall of the historic theater is no great view either. When it was built there was a brick commercial building next to it hiding that wall.
Restoring the Alameda Theatre is obviously a plus all the way around. What worries me is the huge multiplex that they want to attach to it. Not only does it overwhelm the old structure and the surrounding area, it may cause a traffic nightmare in Alameda’s lovely & charming “downtown”. However, from kbb’s comments above, it seems there is no happy medium…..so, I guess restoration + huge, unnecessary multi-plex is better than the current state of the theatre.
Thank you, thank you, thank you Lily
I would highly recommend to have the Alameda Theater restored and open for business as it would help to bring business to Alameda and to boost up the economy.
Lily L.
I would highly recommend to have the Alameda Theater restored and open for business as it would help to bring business to Alameda and to boost up the economy.
Lily L.