Well, Shubert had become something of a misnomer, because the Shubert organization had sold the theater to the Nederlanders (basically their broadway arch-rivals) in the early 90s; however, they never changed the name. The Majestic name hadn’t been used for the theatre since the early 1930s – although the office building had retained it – so there was little pressure to use that, especially considering that the new hotel in the former office building is going to be, I think, Hampton Suites at the Majestic Building. Considering Lasalle Bank was forking over so much to renovate it, it must have seemed fitting to rename it that way. I really don’t like the new marquee, though. It looks goofy and doesn’t really resemble any of the historic marquees except the Shubert one, only with the added odd curvy thing on top. One nice touch, though, is that the bottom of the canopy is modeled after the original metal that had been left in place all those years, exposed during the renovation. [url=http://iconeon.blogspot.com/2006/05/majestic-shubert-lasalle-banktheater.html]Here]Here} is the article i’ve mostly paraphrased that covers it well.
As I see it, a restoration is interested in taking a place as close as feasible to opening day (Really, none of the major downtown Chicago theaters has been FULLY restored). The effect of history and its changes should be mostly invisible. Here, they just tried to make it resemble its original decor; at least on the opening tours, you could see plaster with built-up, chunky paint obscuring detail, poorly painted sections, et cetera, especially in the balcony. They clearly had to rush to make it open, even despite the time overruns. One review of the work noted an inordinate amount of sheetrock. Now, they could have spent 5 times more and done a full restoration. I don’t think that’s really appropriate,and I don’t really have any problem with the job they did- though it would have been cool if they had tried to recreate the long-lost themed bathrooms. It’s a fine house and one Chicago can be proud of.
It looks far better, but I don’t think it can really be considered a restoration, more a historically sensitive renovation. It looks pretty nice, but there are a few places where you can really see they had to rush.
The architects were Hooper & Janusch. Oddly, the original plans included provision for expanding to the west, to add four additional stores and 1500 more seats to the theater for a total of 3100. I’m not really sure how practical elongating a theater would be…
Keep in mind, the scanning is done from the microfilm and then uses OCR technology to recognize the text, so it shouldn’t be terribly labor-intensive. One of the major drawbacks is that to get the text most readable for OCR, the exposure for the whole page is knocked up drastically, such that graphics are almost always badly distorted.
It must be getting more affordable, though; the Proquest-competitor newspaperarchive.com (which features a far less sophisticated and therefore less useful search system) now features many local papers, including the suburban chicago Daily Herald.
Well, actually Jim, the full run of the Chicago Tribune is now online, available through the Chicago Public Library, and various local libraries and universities. once you get a hang of running searches (I usually do a combination search of several unlikely theater names that would appear in the daily listings, like “milford AND rockne AND adelphi” or what have you), you can fairly easily pull up movie listings for a set window of time. It would be time consuming of course, but less fatiguing than microfilm.
Still there. There’s a good picture of it and the rest of the nortown in one of the three or four pictoral history books on Chicago’s north side. Sorry I can’t be more specific.
I spoke to the very friendly owner the other day actually; he said that the theater has a large base of loyal customers and that although the Renaissance multi a few blocks away took maybe 10% of business away; however it also helped open the local audience to art films, which is now the specialty. It’s really a very neat place, and it’s worth seeing just to look at the way they split it. It’s a very high-quality split; they put the wall halfway between the back wall and the stage so the main house is only split into two pretty sizable theaters with very big screens. A corridor was made along the side of the rear theater, and the partition wall was plastered and paneled to look like the original wall. This was extended into a former exit corridor to reach the third screen on the stage, which is more of a shoebox, but still decently done. The fourth screen, also a shoebox is built out of dead space upstairs and is accessed by the old stairs to the balcony. The small horseshoe balcony is used to access the various projection booths. It’s all very cleverly done. The owner also confirmed my architect information.
General Cinemas were often really just called CINEMA or CINEMA I & II or so on. The town name was just tacked on to differentiate them.
Well, Shubert had become something of a misnomer, because the Shubert organization had sold the theater to the Nederlanders (basically their broadway arch-rivals) in the early 90s; however, they never changed the name. The Majestic name hadn’t been used for the theatre since the early 1930s – although the office building had retained it – so there was little pressure to use that, especially considering that the new hotel in the former office building is going to be, I think, Hampton Suites at the Majestic Building. Considering Lasalle Bank was forking over so much to renovate it, it must have seemed fitting to rename it that way. I really don’t like the new marquee, though. It looks goofy and doesn’t really resemble any of the historic marquees except the Shubert one, only with the added odd curvy thing on top. One nice touch, though, is that the bottom of the canopy is modeled after the original metal that had been left in place all those years, exposed during the renovation. [url=http://iconeon.blogspot.com/2006/05/majestic-shubert-lasalle-banktheater.html]Here]Here} is the article i’ve mostly paraphrased that covers it well.
As I see it, a restoration is interested in taking a place as close as feasible to opening day (Really, none of the major downtown Chicago theaters has been FULLY restored). The effect of history and its changes should be mostly invisible. Here, they just tried to make it resemble its original decor; at least on the opening tours, you could see plaster with built-up, chunky paint obscuring detail, poorly painted sections, et cetera, especially in the balcony. They clearly had to rush to make it open, even despite the time overruns. One review of the work noted an inordinate amount of sheetrock. Now, they could have spent 5 times more and done a full restoration. I don’t think that’s really appropriate,and I don’t really have any problem with the job they did- though it would have been cool if they had tried to recreate the long-lost themed bathrooms. It’s a fine house and one Chicago can be proud of.
As was the Kedzie Annex, with the Kedzie built in January and the Annex in August. I suppose you might just consider this the very first Twin!
The Kedzie Avenue was a 1909 Rapp & Rapp design.
Architect was A. Proskauer
The Star was built in 1907. The architect was Oscar Cobb.
It was apparently remodeled in 1905 by W.W. Clay
Architect firm was Oscar Cobb & Son. Built 1905.
This was another very early Rapp & Rapp house.
The architect appears to have been F.E. Higgins.
It looks far better, but I don’t think it can really be considered a restoration, more a historically sensitive renovation. It looks pretty nice, but there are a few places where you can really see they had to rush.
I wasn’t aware Garrett’s had opened. It’s ground-floor retail, next to the office buiding entrance.
Here is another recent interior shot
Apparently, those single-story photos across from the station were designed by rapp & rapp
The architect was Walter W. Ahlschlager
The architects were Hooper & Janusch. Oddly, the original plans included provision for expanding to the west, to add four additional stores and 1500 more seats to the theater for a total of 3100. I’m not really sure how practical elongating a theater would be…
Keep in mind, the scanning is done from the microfilm and then uses OCR technology to recognize the text, so it shouldn’t be terribly labor-intensive. One of the major drawbacks is that to get the text most readable for OCR, the exposure for the whole page is knocked up drastically, such that graphics are almost always badly distorted.
It must be getting more affordable, though; the Proquest-competitor newspaperarchive.com (which features a far less sophisticated and therefore less useful search system) now features many local papers, including the suburban chicago Daily Herald.
Well, actually Jim, the full run of the Chicago Tribune is now online, available through the Chicago Public Library, and various local libraries and universities. once you get a hang of running searches (I usually do a combination search of several unlikely theater names that would appear in the daily listings, like “milford AND rockne AND adelphi” or what have you), you can fairly easily pull up movie listings for a set window of time. It would be time consuming of course, but less fatiguing than microfilm.
Wouldn’t a chandelier look kind of absurd hanging from an atmospheric sky, anyway?
Yes, it reopened last weekend. I don’t really care for the ‘modernized’ marquee.
Still there. There’s a good picture of it and the rest of the nortown in one of the three or four pictoral history books on Chicago’s north side. Sorry I can’t be more specific.
I spoke to the very friendly owner the other day actually; he said that the theater has a large base of loyal customers and that although the Renaissance multi a few blocks away took maybe 10% of business away; however it also helped open the local audience to art films, which is now the specialty. It’s really a very neat place, and it’s worth seeing just to look at the way they split it. It’s a very high-quality split; they put the wall halfway between the back wall and the stage so the main house is only split into two pretty sizable theaters with very big screens. A corridor was made along the side of the rear theater, and the partition wall was plastered and paneled to look like the original wall. This was extended into a former exit corridor to reach the third screen on the stage, which is more of a shoebox, but still decently done. The fourth screen, also a shoebox is built out of dead space upstairs and is accessed by the old stairs to the balcony. The small horseshoe balcony is used to access the various projection booths. It’s all very cleverly done. The owner also confirmed my architect information.
General Cinemas were often really just called CINEMA or CINEMA I & II or so on. The town name was just tacked on to differentiate them.
This is a duplicate listing. /theaters/2676/
The original architects were Buechner & Orth