Times Square Theatre
217 W. 42nd Street,
New York,
NY
10036
217 W. 42nd Street,
New York,
NY
10036
26 people
favorited this theater
Showing 101 - 125 of 202 comments
Ah, thanks Warren. That makes sense. It still leaves us with an empty theater that, whether it qualifies as a true movie palace or not, it is still a better theater than the vast majority of those listed on CT. For me, and I am speaking only for myself, what makes a theater a palace is the architecture of the building and the environment that it created as you watched a film. Whether it was a Spanish Courtyard, an Italian Villa, an Asian Fantasy, these are the theaters that need to be preserved, not the post war multiplexes with shoe box screens. Luckily, The Times Square, does have a movie screening past and therefore we can discuss it here.
Directly across the street is yet another theater, The Liberty, which is cocooned behind the cacaphony of 42nd Street. The theater sits there awaiting a new use. So now there are two theaters on the illustrious 42nd Street that are just sitting there. A third, the DeMille, sits behind some cheesy retail at 47th and 7th Avenue. I think, these are the last remaining unrenovated theaters in midtown Manhattan.
I know it’s a fantasy, but I still feel that it deserves to be looked at seriously now that the one entity who had committed to lease it has backed out. An alternate use needs to be found; one that respects the architectural elements of this theater.
Other ideas are welcome.
Luis,
Nice fantasy. We hear it so many times (Embassy 1,2,3…..Cape May’s Beach……etc) but it isn’t realistic. And, as Intro says “little or no lobby” this one hardly sounds like a movie palace to me!
I think it would do well because it would be different. As a single screen theater that seats a healthy 1,000 patrons it would operate as a unique experience; an opportunity to see a movie in a “palace” environment. Unlike The Ziegfeld which was constructed in 1969, The Times Square would be an opportnity to see a film on 42nd Street, the way generations past watched them in their heyday.
The new Times Square could host movie premieres (where better than on 42nd Street), limited release films, film festivals, oldies and act as a set for films/commericials. There is curently no theater dating before the Ziegfeld that shows films anymore.
I believe the market is there, but the money that it would take to get this theater to that point may be prohibitive. Nonetheless, it should be seriously looked into by the city.
What makes you think it would do well with 38 Screens already on the same block?
As I’ve mentioned above, this theater does not work for live theater. It is too small and the investment required too large. There is not enough backstage space either, in addition to not having enough customer seating. That is why I feel that the best use would be to revert to showing actual movies. I think it could do well, but again, the problem is who would front the renovation costs?
It would be great if they could find someone that would restore this theater and operate it as a theater. If it can work anywhere, Times Square should be the place…
As Al said several theatres are dark. Nederlander just spent money restoring some of the Nederlander Theatre for the opening of “Guys and Dolls” after “RENT” closed.
Broadway is hurting badly during this recession and several theatres are dark.
???
I thought that Broadway was in dire need of another theatre. Why couldn’t this one be uded? If Broadway is doing as well as they claim, why doesn’t the Shubert Organization or one of the other companys take over? It’s worth a try.
Yeah, that’s the answer I was hoping for. It is totally capable of returning to use as a theater; it just doesn’t appear to make financial sense. Even worse, the theater is in dire need of a top to bottom renovation. With the New Amsterdam, Disney took a shot because of the size of the theater, it was capable of housing the biggest Broadway productions, had incredible beauty even in decay and, of course, the city was offering generous tax breaks and loans at low interest.
No such luck with the Times Square. It needs lots of work, has no space to accommodate live theater and, in any event, would be too small. I do believe that a restored movie palace of this size could be successful hosting Premiere’s (what better place than 42nd Street), and also hosting classic movie series in addition regular releases. Nonetheless, I don’t see anyone stepping forward to invest in a project like this.
Does the 42nd Street development Corporation have any access to low cost loans? Would the city provide the requisite tax breaks? Does anyone know how much an actual restoration would cost? There are many questions. it’ll be interesting to see what happens.
I would like to see it return as a movie theatre, but with the way studios release films now and contracts for how many weeks it must play. Look at the old Embassy 2,3,4 sat there in Times Square. It was still set-up as a theatre, but the rent killed the deal as a movie theatre (1 million a year at one time). There are too many things working againist it returning as a movie theatre.
The single screen theatre can not return a profit that will make any chain interested it. As CNN put it about the current money problems there is no “Dumb Money” available to invest. “Dumb Money” was when a company or companies had lots of money to invest in projects like movies and building projects.
Why not, William? It has the same seating as the Ziegfeld, but probably feels more intimate because it has an overhanging balcony. I know this theater doesn’t work for the legitimate stage because of a lack of fly space, dressing room areas, etc, but why not a movie theater?
If not a theater, then why not a night club? Back in the day, the best clubs were all in old theaters, Studio 54 (Gallo Opera House), Xenon’s (Henry Miller), Palladium (Academy of Music), Club USA (Forum), The Saint (Loews Commodore), Bond’s (International Casino). This is a long and storied history.
Make no mistake, my overriding preference and desire is for the Times Square to remain a theater. But barring that, I want it brought back into the public realm so that people can see it and admire it once again; either as a club or as retail space that respects the integrity of the space and its legacy.
The door was open on the 42nd. street last week. There was no seats and it still looked pretty green like the above picture. As a single screen movie theatre, no. As some other retail location, yes.
Marc Ecko has officially pulled out of the retail project for this theater. A new search has begun for a new tenant. I guess the big question is: Exactly what is the state of this theater? Has none of it yet been restored? Is it at all possible that this could be utilized as a movie theater again? Why not have at least one of the old Times Square theaters remain as an actual film palace?
The Liberty is still cocooned as well across the street.
photo from nov 2005 of the wrapped exterior
http://www.flickr.com/photos/woody1969/73312413/
and a nighttime shot from the same date
View link
Any word on what is happening here? Are plans still in the works for Ecko to open a store in this space?
Yes, the Selwyn is now the American Airlines.
frankenstien at hilton..thanks
ok what was the american airlines aka selwin ?
Wally, 214 is the New Amsterdam. The Lyric and the Apollo were combined to create the Ford/Hilton at 213.
the reason i bring this up is young frankenstien is playing at
the hilton…tickets and broadway.com says 214w 42nd.
this was the lyric?
Thanks, Warren. That picture of Abbott and Costello pulling the Empire Theatre always puts a smile on my face.
can anyone tell me what was 214 w 42nd st theatre now the hilton..