Ron Newman wrote: “Of these, only Assembly Square and Harvard Square remain from the days of Sack Theatres or USACinemas.” When you think of their omnipresence in the past, that’s pretty amazing. Then again, though, if you add up all the screens at the Boston Common and Fenway, do those pretty much equal Sack/USA at their peak in the city of Boston? I note that the AMC Fenway has some rather big screens.
R. Newman wrote:<<Also, it was apparently called the ‘Victory’ between 1945 and 1949.>> That’s interesting. Where my grandmother lived, they gave that same name to the local hardware store, all in celebration of the end of WWII, I’d guess.
R. Newman wrote: <<I bet that within another week, shoppers in the mall won’t even see that a cinema used to be here.>> It will be as though it never existed. Too bad about the loss of the Howard Johnson’s site on Commonwealth; it might have made that area more pedestrian friendly and less institutional.
The Kendall is a fine theater. Alas, it’s a long, dreary walk from the Red Line through a barren wasteland made worse in extreme weather; and driving in there, at least from the South Shore, can be a real chore, even outside of the rush hour. The Kendall doesn’t have stadium seating; but the screens are nicely proportioned and the rake of the auditoriums is better than most standard theaters. Regarding the departed Copley, I must confess, I won’t miss those auditoriums that sloped downward from the screen. Gack.
After noting the demise of the Copley Place theater here, I went to look for the entry for the AMC Fenway on this site and found none; please correct me if I’m wrong. I’ve never been to that theater. How does it rate as a venue? Does it have stadium seating (does the new Lowes?) Perhaps someone who is familiar with it can create a listing. All I know is that it once was a Sears regional warehouse and that General Cinema did the original conversion within the last ten years, or so. Speaking of the late General Cinema, does AMC use any of their former corporate offices? Does anyone know if their former VP in charge of technical operations, John Norton, is still in the area. He was very, very knowledgable and a strong advocate of good sound and projection. The General Cinema group in its day took real pride in that. John encouraged GC to install some HPS-4000 sounds systems which, IMHO, are among the very best in the industry. Excellent clarity and definition in mid-range frequencies, particularly.
I can only second these sentiments. This is, after all, Boston, one of the country’s major cities. What factors brought this about. The high cost of real estate. It makes me think of the Publix theater. When the auditorium was free from live performances, they could have run off-mainstream films.
Eminent domain can be used fairly broadly for “the public good.” Also, buildings can be condemned as being structurally unsound without eminent domain. The owner just has to take the building down. In eminent domain, there’s a process of determining fair market value and compensating the owner. The owner can appeal if he thinks the value is too low. As Ron observes, Kensington owns the Gaiety, and they’re quite happy to a demolish it.
It’s a very sad day for Boston when you lose a historic theater in a designated cultural district, a theater which has been listed by the Commonwealth’s register of historic places. Thanks to all here, and particularly Ron, for posting updates.
High rises should be on the periphery of downtown districts, rather than in them. If they must be built within them, historic continuity and low rise buildings should be retained in the mix, like the Gaiety and its commercial block. Otherwise, you have a very sterile, canyonized district, particulary with the narrows streets in and around Downtown Crossing. And perhaps I judge too harshly. Maybe the Kensington is part of what will be an enduring urban design. I’m ready to be convinced. Downtown Boston thrived for years with residential areas surrounding it on Beacon Hill, Back Bay, and the North and South Ends, and with people coming in on the extensive public transit system. Will they be drawn by the lifeless buildings that are the exclusive enclaves of the wealthy few? I’d rather have them build another condominium tower in the Prudential Center or over the Mass. Pike than plunk the thing on Washington Street. Let them come in on the Green or Orange Lines.
I don’t know if the “ten taxpayers” suit can be used anymore in Massachusetts, let alone in this case. It was a way of getting standing when other avenues failed. Certain rules used to apply. I imagine residents or business owners in Chinatown might have qualified. I guess it’s too late now, though. Too bad WGBH came in so late in the game. Also too bad that Boston is killing the downtown with these outlandish highrises. Actually, the outland would be a good place for them.
A quick follow-up to dwodeyla’s comments. General Cinema really did have a good reputation in Braintree. I grew up there. Stated simply, they were one of the best, possibly THE best, theater chains of their era. The projection and sound were always first rate. They had all sorts of charity events and were community oriented. Both the old and new theaters had good architecture for their building type. The old theater is a retail store.
Thanks for the update. Hmmm. It must be a big back room. I’d guess the lobby/box office/concession stand area is the coffee shop. It’s a typical commercial block of the era (twenties?) which had stores in the front, a fairly narrow, store-sized entrance to the theater, and the auditiorium placed in back. The Publix/Gaiety has a similar configuration. The marquees and entrances are quite narrow compared to the theater inside. That maximized rentable storefronts.
Ron—Many thanks for the Gaiety updates. Thank heaven for coverage by the “Sampan” and the “Phoenix.” Those and other postings provide a timely chronicle of the unfolding fate of this theater. They make a real case study in urban planning.
I don’t know the current status of the venue, since I rarely get to East Milton now; it sat vacant for a number of years and still was unused several years ago. I’m blanking now on when it closed, possibly around 1990. It was family run, and they may have shut down because of competition from the multiplexes. That said, they always seemed to do a brisk business with a loyal clientele.
I’m surprised the Globe hasn’t done so. I the eighties, they had a strong interest in city planning, even sponsoring conferences. I’d have hope that at least their architecture critic, Robert Campbell, might have weighed in on the matter.
To All Concerned: I hope you get a good turnout for and coverage of the rally tomorrow. It might help if representatives of interested groups get to speak in a presentation at the theater site. Some thoughtful quotes in the papers and sound bites on radio and TV news could only do good. I share BillA’s cautions; with land use cases, you just never know. It’s one of the more arcane areas of law, which sometimes can work in your favor. At least the Supreme Court has agreed to hear it.
Ron- AS I mentioned above, I saw “Beverly Hills Cop II” at this theater, and it was the rowdiest crowd I’d ever experienced at a film. That was my last visit movie there. I guess it went downhill after that. I’m a member of the church across the street. When the Beacon Hill ran art films, I’d catch a show on Sunday afternoon, since I’d already parked in the basement garage there.
Any word on pending appeals by Ritz Tower plaintiffs?
Ron Newman wrote: “Of these, only Assembly Square and Harvard Square remain from the days of Sack Theatres or USACinemas.” When you think of their omnipresence in the past, that’s pretty amazing. Then again, though, if you add up all the screens at the Boston Common and Fenway, do those pretty much equal Sack/USA at their peak in the city of Boston? I note that the AMC Fenway has some rather big screens.
Loews is the Keystone Cops of theater chains.
R. Newman wrote:<<Also, it was apparently called the ‘Victory’ between 1945 and 1949.>> That’s interesting. Where my grandmother lived, they gave that same name to the local hardware store, all in celebration of the end of WWII, I’d guess.
R. Newman wrote: <<I bet that within another week, shoppers in the mall won’t even see that a cinema used to be here.>> It will be as though it never existed. Too bad about the loss of the Howard Johnson’s site on Commonwealth; it might have made that area more pedestrian friendly and less institutional.
The Kendall is a fine theater. Alas, it’s a long, dreary walk from the Red Line through a barren wasteland made worse in extreme weather; and driving in there, at least from the South Shore, can be a real chore, even outside of the rush hour. The Kendall doesn’t have stadium seating; but the screens are nicely proportioned and the rake of the auditoriums is better than most standard theaters. Regarding the departed Copley, I must confess, I won’t miss those auditoriums that sloped downward from the screen. Gack.
After noting the demise of the Copley Place theater here, I went to look for the entry for the AMC Fenway on this site and found none; please correct me if I’m wrong. I’ve never been to that theater. How does it rate as a venue? Does it have stadium seating (does the new Lowes?) Perhaps someone who is familiar with it can create a listing. All I know is that it once was a Sears regional warehouse and that General Cinema did the original conversion within the last ten years, or so. Speaking of the late General Cinema, does AMC use any of their former corporate offices? Does anyone know if their former VP in charge of technical operations, John Norton, is still in the area. He was very, very knowledgable and a strong advocate of good sound and projection. The General Cinema group in its day took real pride in that. John encouraged GC to install some HPS-4000 sounds systems which, IMHO, are among the very best in the industry. Excellent clarity and definition in mid-range frequencies, particularly.
I can only second these sentiments. This is, after all, Boston, one of the country’s major cities. What factors brought this about. The high cost of real estate. It makes me think of the Publix theater. When the auditorium was free from live performances, they could have run off-mainstream films.
Eminent domain can be used fairly broadly for “the public good.” Also, buildings can be condemned as being structurally unsound without eminent domain. The owner just has to take the building down. In eminent domain, there’s a process of determining fair market value and compensating the owner. The owner can appeal if he thinks the value is too low. As Ron observes, Kensington owns the Gaiety, and they’re quite happy to a demolish it.
It’s a very sad day for Boston when you lose a historic theater in a designated cultural district, a theater which has been listed by the Commonwealth’s register of historic places. Thanks to all here, and particularly Ron, for posting updates.
High rises should be on the periphery of downtown districts, rather than in them. If they must be built within them, historic continuity and low rise buildings should be retained in the mix, like the Gaiety and its commercial block. Otherwise, you have a very sterile, canyonized district, particulary with the narrows streets in and around Downtown Crossing. And perhaps I judge too harshly. Maybe the Kensington is part of what will be an enduring urban design. I’m ready to be convinced. Downtown Boston thrived for years with residential areas surrounding it on Beacon Hill, Back Bay, and the North and South Ends, and with people coming in on the extensive public transit system. Will they be drawn by the lifeless buildings that are the exclusive enclaves of the wealthy few? I’d rather have them build another condominium tower in the Prudential Center or over the Mass. Pike than plunk the thing on Washington Street. Let them come in on the Green or Orange Lines.
To my knowledge, it was never a twin. Too narrow, and the booth was tiny.
I don’t know if the “ten taxpayers” suit can be used anymore in Massachusetts, let alone in this case. It was a way of getting standing when other avenues failed. Certain rules used to apply. I imagine residents or business owners in Chinatown might have qualified. I guess it’s too late now, though. Too bad WGBH came in so late in the game. Also too bad that Boston is killing the downtown with these outlandish highrises. Actually, the outland would be a good place for them.
A quick follow-up to dwodeyla’s comments. General Cinema really did have a good reputation in Braintree. I grew up there. Stated simply, they were one of the best, possibly THE best, theater chains of their era. The projection and sound were always first rate. They had all sorts of charity events and were community oriented. Both the old and new theaters had good architecture for their building type. The old theater is a retail store.
Thanks for the update. Hmmm. It must be a big back room. I’d guess the lobby/box office/concession stand area is the coffee shop. It’s a typical commercial block of the era (twenties?) which had stores in the front, a fairly narrow, store-sized entrance to the theater, and the auditiorium placed in back. The Publix/Gaiety has a similar configuration. The marquees and entrances are quite narrow compared to the theater inside. That maximized rentable storefronts.
Ron—Many thanks for the Gaiety updates. Thank heaven for coverage by the “Sampan” and the “Phoenix.” Those and other postings provide a timely chronicle of the unfolding fate of this theater. They make a real case study in urban planning.
Did the demonstration take place? Was there any coverage by the press?
I don’t know the current status of the venue, since I rarely get to East Milton now; it sat vacant for a number of years and still was unused several years ago. I’m blanking now on when it closed, possibly around 1990. It was family run, and they may have shut down because of competition from the multiplexes. That said, they always seemed to do a brisk business with a loyal clientele.
I apologize for all the typos in the previous post. I meant to hit the “preview” button.
I’m surprised the Globe hasn’t done so. I the eighties, they had a strong interest in city planning, even sponsoring conferences. I’d have hope that at least their architecture critic, Robert Campbell, might have weighed in on the matter.
Have any of the papers taken an editorial stand in favor of saving the theater?
To All Concerned: I hope you get a good turnout for and coverage of the rally tomorrow. It might help if representatives of interested groups get to speak in a presentation at the theater site. Some thoughtful quotes in the papers and sound bites on radio and TV news could only do good. I share BillA’s cautions; with land use cases, you just never know. It’s one of the more arcane areas of law, which sometimes can work in your favor. At least the Supreme Court has agreed to hear it.
Ron—Thanks for the archive reference. Much appreciated.
Ron—Where do you access the Globe archives? On-line?
Ron- AS I mentioned above, I saw “Beverly Hills Cop II” at this theater, and it was the rowdiest crowd I’d ever experienced at a film. That was my last visit movie there. I guess it went downhill after that. I’m a member of the church across the street. When the Beacon Hill ran art films, I’d catch a show on Sunday afternoon, since I’d already parked in the basement garage there.