Kings Theatre

1027 Flatbush Avenue,
Brooklyn, NY 11226

Unfavorite 86 people favorited this theater

Showing 1,051 - 1,075 of 1,564 comments

bruceanthony
bruceanthony on October 27, 2005 at 7:51 pm

I think if the Paradise can be restored in the Bronx and the Jersey is slowly being restored I think Brooklyn with its large population and great transportation can restore at least one movie palace. Most movie palaces were very successful through the mid 1960’s. In the Bronx,Queens and Brooklyn many were successful into the early 1970’s. Declining downtowns,changes in distibution of movies as well as the middle class flight to the suburbs along with television brought and end to the movie palace era. Brooklyn is in the beginnings of a great revival which should help the Kings in the long run. I believe the Kings is in an economic zone which would qualify for major funding. The Kings could be restored over many years so people should focus on what needs to be done just to get the theatre open and operating. The Loew’s Jersey is a great example of repairs being done over a period of time and a great deal of it by the volunteers which did a lot of repairs at a fraction of the cost.The Kings needs some strong leaders and volunteers who live in the general area with assist from Brooklyn government officials.Poll after Poll lists the Kings as one of New York City’s most popular movie palaces, which people would like to see restored. The City of New York should make the necessary repairs to see that no more damage is done to this theatre while it is waiting to be restored.When I took a tour of this theatre a few years ago this was my favorite theatre among the 30 I had seen on the tour. I hope people don’t make this the Paramount VS Kings for restoration I think in the long run there will be room for both. Good luck Brooklyn.brucec

JimRankin
JimRankin on October 27, 2005 at 5:36 pm

Thank you “ERD”; it is always my hope to make our beloved subject area clear to all concerned. I was once like “Lance” and others who evidently believe ‘Well, SOMEONE must be able to do something!’ only to grow and realize that these buildings were beautiful, but never practical. They are exhorbitantly costly to run —even when packed with thousands of paid admissions each day as they were designed for!

To amplify the ‘demising’ situation: If a demising agreement exists, it is an instant RED FLAG against any use of the building by a potential buyer of the theatre, as his lawyers will quickly warn him. Any property buyer wants his property investment to be as safe as possible, and any demising will only serve to increase his risks, not decrease them. For example: suppose the roof leaks and water travels down inside the walls of the front of the theatre, damaging superstructure and throwing some of the masonry onto the sidewalk, as water flows into one of the demised stores under other ownership. Who pays for the roof/building repairs? Who is liable for the masonry striking a patron of one of the stores? Who pays for the loss of business from that and other patrons as repair scaffolding blocks the front of the building and stores? Should the new theatre owner agree to pay for any replacement of store contents? The agreement might make it appear that since it is the theatre’s roof, the theatre owner should pay for the repairs, but suppose he doesn’t want to or cannot pay the $50,000 or more for a roof job? He will find himself in court with even greater liability, while his areas of the building may not even be affected.

If the utilities cannot all be realistically separated, who pays for the utilities use in the areas that others occupy? IF it is the theatre owner, does he control the thermostat, and will the tenants be satisfied with his idea of proper temperature? If they are not happy, the new owner could again find himself in court, with all the fees to pay for that even if the court finds the landlord not responsible for the tenants discomfort. If so, the tenant will move out, and the theatre owner will find an idle store possibly soon with squatters inside that will theaten the safety and security of his building, not just the store portion that the undesireables have taken over. If such creatures (as well as four- and six-legged ones) will not leave, the theatre owner has no recourse under law, since he does not own the space and cannot enter it, nor legally turn off the utilities to it. If the former owner has abandoned the space(s), the theatre sits with one or more ugly vacancies next to its front doors that it can do little about, other than petition a court to declare the spaces in receivership, which will still not get him control of the spaces, and will take years to clear up via condemnation proceedings.

So we see that any use of neighboring stores or other facilities may prove more a threat than a bonus to a potential buyer of a vacant theatre. And the reverse is true for the owners of the demised areas: if the theatre leaks and only a very absentee landlord owns the theatre, any leaks or other problems may not be addressed in any timely fashion, and again it may take trips to court to get orders to the theatre owner to stabilize the space from which he is getting no income, and cities are notorious for being very poor landlords! After all, how long can the tenants/store owners fight city hall and win BEFORE they go under financially? The lawyers will be happy to keep the case alive in courts for many years while obtaining their fees, while the occupants of the stores go bankrupt. Such is the evil of law in this system of things. So, I never advise someone to buy a property if they cannot get it free and clear of any other ownerships or encumbrances. To do otherwise is think with one’s heart rather than one’s head, and is just bad business practice that will cost one dearly in the end.

ERD
ERD on October 27, 2005 at 12:45 pm

Kudos, Mr. Rankin. Your explination is very well expressed.

JimRankin
JimRankin on October 27, 2005 at 8:27 am

Lance, your pain at the KING’S situation is palpable, and most all of us here agree with you that the KINGS should be returned to service of some sort, but what sort? That is the crux of the matter, don’t you see. All the enthusiasm in the world will not pay for the huge bills to repair, rehab, and revitalize a huge movie palace for which there is no longer an audience. Movie-going is declining steadily as more and cheaper options of entertainment present themselves, and even much smaller cinemas with comparatively small overhead are finding it a tougher and tougher go these days. It is all well and good to talk about a community performance center or the like, and a mixed use facility does SOUND possible, but what all these proposals lack is a SOUND financial plan, and that is what is needed to reopen the KINGS in any format. I wring my hands too as I see the years march on and the building deteriorate, but I am not going to criticize Brooklyn fathers for not spending more of the fewer tax dollars they have to pay for more than roof repairs —alone totaling many thousands of dollars. If this were a small theatre of less than a thousand seats, it might have worked out as a public project with tax dollars, but the city fathers are not stupid; they know that anything the size of the KINGS will require a large fortune to repair and reopen, and they were not elected to spend the public’s money so lavishly. As with all central cities, the people most in a position to pay taxes have moved out long ago, leaving only those least able to pay taxes for all the many needs, much less vast buildings which no private interests will touch. Does this fact sound an alarm bell for would-be preservationists? It should! Private interests will always take on an expense if they sense that they can make money from it, but they will stay well away from something that appears to cost more than it will ever return. It is part of the cost/benefit analysis that all business must make in order to survive.

I will continue to pine away for the once grand —if not grandiose— KINGS, but I will not imply criticism to any locals or businessmen who have not stepped forward. The neighborhood of the UPTOWN in Chicago may favor returning that huge theatre to use, but the history of it is littered with good-willed individuals and groups that went bust trying to save it. That city has already spent hundreds of thousands trying to stabilize the structure, and they face over a hundred thousand dollars in heating costs yearly to just keep it above freezing while it remains dark and idle. How much more can we expect the dwingling tax base to maintain? For the same reasons as the KINGS, the UPTOWN will not reopen under any private sponsor: it will cost too much to maintain, even if new uses are found. With mounting tragic social causes across the country, we cannot expect philanthropies to spend for buildings ahead of people, and our poor people must be healthy and solvent enough to pay admission to such huge theatres in huge numbers in order to keep a REALISTIC cash flow = the means by which a theatre ‘eats’ (pays its bills.) No, the UPTOWN is no model for the KINGS, for though it is stabilized to an extent, it still has no realistic model for use; how many performance groups are there that can essentially fill a four thousand seat theatre that has millions of cubic feet of space to light, heat and cool?

The stores flanking the KINGS were most likely not rented because the city faced the legal obstacles of what is called “demising” by which a deed restriction would have to be formed to separate the stores from the theatre in order to limit the liabilities of the would-be tenants, and such agreements are difficult if not impossible to reach. In many cases like this, the stores share some of the utilities and systems of the theatre, since they were originally under the same ownership. Who is going to pay to revamp or rebuild such today? New tenants? Why should they if they can go to another storefront nearby and have no such opening costs? How will such tenants be competitive if they must bear such costs that their competitors elsewhere do not have to bear? How will property taxes be assessed if the demising agreement has any loopholes in it? The last thing the city wants is to appear in court to sue one of its own tenants who object to assessments that might reflect some of the idle theatre which the city owns. Do you see the problems that arise?

Let us continue to hope for the KINGS, but not any of us advance lofty ambitions unless we have CONCRETE committments of money and use in hand. Long live the KINGS for anyone who has the audacity and money to reopen it.

uncleal923
uncleal923 on October 27, 2005 at 1:11 am

Lance;
You may also find some encouraging news at this section of the Cinema Treasures

http://cinematreasures.org/polls/79

uncleal923
uncleal923 on October 27, 2005 at 1:05 am

Lance;
Let me know the latest. I can join the fight on two fronts can’t I? I mean this theater should be opened for performance, and I would like to see it.

lance
lance on October 26, 2005 at 11:59 pm

There is a saying, “If people knew better, they would do better.”

It is quite discouraging to know that the Kings has been closed for more than 25 years and those who have claimed to have taken care of it, allowed the Kings to fall into such disrepair.

At the very least, the Kings should have been properly maintained and looked after. The exterior, interior and the windows are filthy. This belief that some people have that let’s sit back and wait for someone with deep pockets to save the Kings has not worked. If the Kings was looked after, maybe it would be in similar shape to another Rapp & Rapp theater: Uptown, in Chicago, ILL. More important, the community where the Uptown is located wants to see it saved. The community were the Kings is has no emotionally attachment because no one has taken the time to make this an agenda. How can we save a theater unless the local commuity is part of restoration of it? These are the same people that will be attending this theater. The Kings could have been used for graduations, weddings, local gatherings, filming, and the list is endless. Instead, it has been left to rot.

Why weren’t the stores next to the Kings being rented and that income used to help maintain the Kings? Every other store front on Flatbush Ave. is being used. This also would have meant more people would have had contact with the Kings.

Anyone who has seen the TV Special: Memories of a Movie Palace will remember the former manager of the Kings when she broke down crying upon seeing the Kings in 1979. Can you imagine her reaction if she were to see the Kings today??? It is infurating to know that this Palace was allowed to fall into such a deporable state.

This is the reason why my friend and I had a meeting with the Brooklyn Borough President’s assistant. We offered to volunteer our time and money in order to help to save the Kings.

The theater itself could be a part of the revitalzation of the Flatbush area by getting the community members involved with the cleanup and restoration work. This should have begun 25 years ago. However, it is not too late.

We have to be proactive. This means voicing your opinions with the legislators in Brooklyn, NY to at least stablize the Kings. Also, coming up with solutions so that the Kings can thrive in the area it is located.

We may also have to make concessions, if you want to see the Kings survive the next couple of years. I would rather see the Kings be stablized and in the conditon that the Majestic in downtown Brooklyn, NY is in, than be razed.

uncleal923
uncleal923 on October 24, 2005 at 1:52 am

Lance, there is a committee to save the Kings, and its led by the person on this message board called bruce1. If you can’t find his email on here, let me know using this board.

lance
lance on October 18, 2005 at 3:57 am

Recently, I went to see the Loew’s Kings and what I saw was worse than I expected. Although, the Kings still looks majestic, time is starting to take a toll on her. The front of the building is fithy and the windows do not look like they have been cleaned since it closed. When I looked into the lobby windows there was water damage along the ceiling and it appears to be extremely dirty.

Several people approached me asking about the Kings. They wanted to see the Kings saved believing that it would be an asset to their neighborhood. Also, every store front in the surrounding area of the Kings on Flatbush Ave. with the exception of the Kings building and the attached store fronts are being utilized. This clearly gives the reader some indication that it is profitable to have on a business on Flatbush Ave in Brooklyn, New York.

My friend and I had a meeting with the Brooklyn Borough President’s Assistant, who confirmed that Mr. Markowitz’s indeed is interested in saving the Loew’s Kings. However, there is the fact that it would take about 60 million dollars to restore the Kings. Where is the money going to come from? Mr. Markowitz’s office is open to suggestions. Please remember, at the present time, the Kings can be saved if we use our resources to save it. However, in the next couple of years, the damage maybe too great and the Kings would be the only Wonder Theater that could possible be razed!!!

JimRankin
JimRankin on October 18, 2005 at 2:03 am

Gustave, Uptown is a neighborhood of Chicago, therefore the college is there.

uncleal923
uncleal923 on October 18, 2005 at 1:38 am

I forgot to add to my other comments that we are winning another poll. Which one of theses theaters in New York City should be restored?

http://cinematreasures.org/polls/79

uncleal923
uncleal923 on October 18, 2005 at 1:20 am

Jim;
A committee has been formed to save the Kings. Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz is interested in the project.

uncleal923
uncleal923 on October 18, 2005 at 1:15 am

Where is this college located?

JimRankin
JimRankin on October 17, 2005 at 12:07 pm

This item was sent out to those who signed the Chicago UPTOWN’s petition on the CompasRose web site:

“The following news blurbs come from the Uptown Adviser, the Friends of the Uptown newsletter (visit their Web site at www.uptowntheatre.com)::)

For your cinematic pleasureâ€"One Night Only!
Memoirs of a Movie Palace and Uptown Community Portrait 2005
to be screened at Friends/Truman College event
6:30 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 20, 2005, Truman College

“Memoirs of a Movie Palace” will be screened at Truman College, 1134 W. Wilson Ave., in Uptown. The venue is Novar Hall, where seating is limited. This is a very special screening of a very difficult to find movie. “Uptown Community Portrait 2005,” a short cinema verite documentary, will precede the feature film.

“Memoirs,” a 1979 independent film, tells the story of a theatre very similar to the Uptown: The LOEW’S KINGS THEATRE, in Brooklyn, N.Y., which also remains closed without a plan for reuse. The film was shot on location as the KINGS was being closed in the late 1970s. If someone had the foresight to shoot a movie in the UPTOWN (minus the Brooklyn accents!), we would have a very similar document, with the same kinds of memories recalled and sentiments expressed.

Your attendance as a “Friend” of the Uptown is important to our efforts and goals. As major stabilization work is ongoing at the theatre building, it is a good time for us to network and get to know each other!

Donations will be accepted in lieu of a fixed admission ticket price. Truman officials said that we may park in any of the adjacent Truman parking lots (driveway located on Broadway through the McJunkin Building). Entrance to the Truman building itself will be through the easternmost doors located on the Wilson Avenue side (north elevation). Staff will direct you from there.

***"

The fame of the KINGS and its documentary is spreading, and if you are not in the New York area and have not seen this documentary, this may be your chance, especially if you have wanted to see some of Chicago’s remaining palaces as a side trip. Bon Voyage!

RobertR
RobertR on October 16, 2005 at 2:34 am

World War II may have still been going on but Bob and Bing had them laughing at the Kings with “Road to Moroco” plus “Henry Aldrich Editor”. The same show also day and dated at the Pitkin
View link

Theaterat
Theaterat on October 12, 2005 at 12:53 am

To all of the recent posters on the Kings…. Even though the Jersey IS opened and showing movies and featuring other events. it is by no means complete.It still is a “Work in Progress” and still hase some rough edges.It will be many years until it is restored to its former glory, but the important thing is the fact that it IS open and people seem to be supporting it.Was there on 10-9 for “Monty Python and the Holy Grail' and "Dr Strangelove> and there was a pretty large audience for this show.While Kings preservationists will probably get no support from the Jersey management, it still can be a case in point reference to anybody pitching a revival of this theater.There is no reason why a classic film venue cannot flourish in Brooklyn, so lets start to concentrate on the positive reasons for re-opening the "Loews of Loews”

uncleal923
uncleal923 on October 10, 2005 at 1:30 am

Actually the roof was fixed a few years ago. I am going to suggest to the head of the committee that they hold a rally. I am also on the committee to save the Trylon in Rego Park, Queens. They are planning a rally on the 27th.

JimRankin
JimRankin on October 7, 2005 at 2:06 pm

It is heartening to hear that the roof has, at last, been fixed, but let us not delude ourselves that there is not much damage. It will cost a large fortune indeed. Just to hire the guys to trap/kill all the birds and wildlife in there will costs tens of thousands, and that must be done before it is safe for workers to work in there. I am a great admirer of the KINGS, but I wonder if it was not the enormous task ahead that finally stopped that once proposed rehab into multicinemas by that athlete’s group. Let us give the committee all the encouragement they need. But let us be realistic about the vast job ahead. Those photos give only a glimpse into the large scale of the place; there are dozens of places not shown that also will require expensive renovation if not actual restoration.

uncleal923
uncleal923 on October 7, 2005 at 1:08 am

The roof has been fixed, and they may need to get rid of the water damage. I haven’t been in the theater since I was young so I only know what I saw on the internet of the interior. However, I do know from the head of the Friends of the Kings Committee that the roof has been fixed.

BobFurmanek
BobFurmanek on October 6, 2005 at 6:33 pm

The old stage house roof was totally open to the elements, and pidgeons had moved in. We had them in the projection booth at the Loew’s Jersey, and it was not a pretty sight…

RobertR
RobertR on October 6, 2005 at 1:09 pm

For a place closed 30 years those 2001 pictures don’t look bad. Was there a lot of water damage from 2001 to the time you saw it Warren?

beardbear31
beardbear31 on October 6, 2005 at 5:59 am

I agree, gustavelifting, from the pictures previously posted of the interior, from 2001, it looks like the interior is in great shape….if anyone needs a refresher, those pics can be seen, as a previous post, at: http://www.silverscreens.com/thsa.php…towards the middle of the page

uncleal923
uncleal923 on October 5, 2005 at 8:54 pm

Warren;
It made need a little patchwork, but I don’t think the building is about to collapse. There is someone interested and looking at the theater with the head of the committee to save it. Furthermore, work has been done on the building, including the roof and shoring the facade. In other words, the building is not exactly ready to fall down.

Ziggy
Ziggy on October 5, 2005 at 8:06 pm

The New Amsterdam is a good example Jim, especially because it’s condition was pretty horrifying before it was restored. If I recall, there were mushrooms growing in the downstairs lounge, and a great deal of plasterwork had been ruined by moisture.

uncleal923
uncleal923 on October 5, 2005 at 7:56 pm

Thanx Jim and Warren