Besides cinema 3 being converted to a swimming pool with a small spiral water slide, the theatre is mostly in tact from when it was a movie house. New front ends were built in all three rooms to accommodate stages for lectures, bands, and other presentations. Cinemas 1 and 2 had balconies at the back and sloped in the front. You accessed both sections from the entrance in the middle, centre of the auditorium. All the original seats are still there, with Cinema 2’s front end seats on the sloped floor removed for general admission concerts.
The original twin Garrick building was built and opened in 1968. According to my records, it was built from the same steel frame as the original single-screen Garrick that opened in 1928. That original Garrick had a similar layout.
Scary to think that Magnifico thinks, word-for-word: “if someone wants to tear it down to put an office building up, we would look at that, too.”
The city’s had it sitting around on their “to-do list”… why not just spring the $5 million to restore it and make it a fantastic venue? $5 million is nothing compared to what the city usually spends on anything, and that way they could save the Met and maybe b8ulldoze the Centennial Concert Hall (since it has only stood sincethe 1970s). Don’t chastise me, but I hope you kind of understand what I mean.
I can’t see what I’m typing right now because there’s no side arrow to allow me to scroll down in this text box, so please bear with me.
Future of Winnipeg’s Met theatre uncertain
Last Updated Tue, 04 Jul 2006 12:05:42 EDT
CBC News
Developers have abandoned a plan to convert the old Metropolitan Theatre into a rock ‘n’ roll museum, putting the future of the downtown Winnipeg theatre on shaky ground.
The downtown development agency, CentreVenture, had been working with the idea of restoring the 87-year-old heritage building and transforming it into a non-profit museum that would showcase Canadian rock stars.
But a formal proposal expected from a group of Winnipeg business people didn’t materialize.
A spokesperson for CentreVenture said this week that the proposal is not going ahead in its current form.
Coun. Franco Magnifico, who chairs the city’s downtown development committee, told CBC News there is still considerable interest in the old Met.
“I’d love to preserve if, if we can in an economical and efficient manner. On the other hand, I don’t want to see it sit vacant for 20 years because it has some historical value,” Magnifico said.
“We have great historical buildings in Winnipeg, and we have maintained a lot of them, and we try and preserve whatever we can. It doesn’t mean you can save them all,” he added.
“Down the road, I guess if there is no other option, if someone wants to tear it down to put an office building up, we would look at that, too. But that hasn’t come to the table. We would love to save that building.”
Only theatre left of its kind
Magnifico plans to meet with the business group that was planning to submit the hall of fame proposal to determine if anything can be done to revive the plan for the national historic site.
“Maybe the stumbling block we are talking about isn’t as fantastic as stopping the project entirely,” he said.
“I don’t know why they pulled out the way they did … I just want to find out.”
Meanwhile, CentreVenture is again calling for development proposals for the Met, located on Donald Street across from the new MTS Centre.
The neo-classical style Met is the only theatre of its kind remaining in Winnipeg in its original form; other similar theatres, such as the Capitol, have been demolished or renovated.
The 24,000-square-foot building has twin staircases leading to a large mezzanine level, as well as original mirrors, plasterwork and wall fixtures.
The domed plaster ceiling and massive chandelier still hang in the 2,500-seat auditorium, although CentreVenture officials note “serious plaster problems” have been discovered.
The building has been mostly unused for almost 20 years, although it has been heated. CentreVenture admits it would require “significant work” to bring the building up to code.
Burt wasn’t involved… he’s just had business dealings with them all in the past, so it was more to boost his ego, because, he’s only, like, Winnipeg’s biggest rock star! rolls eyes.
I can’t wait to see more of your pictures of the Capitol. I think it was much nier than the met, even after it was split, although, the Met has a beautiful facade.
If only the Capitol’s guts could be in the Met’s shell.
And, don’t chastise me, but I love the Met too, its just that I think the Capitol was much, much more beautiful and I think they went more for saving the Met because it was never split. And I can’t help but wonder what happened to the Cap’s chandelier (anyone have pictures of it?) or why the Met was never hacked up?
The seats aren’t original. They’re 70s crap. Only about 30% (the frame) of each seat exists still. They’ve removed all fabric, etc.
The Met is a NATIONALLY designated historical site. Its listed as a Grade 1 (the strictest). Its can’t be heavily modified. They’d be welcome to remove the sloped floor, and return the place to its original state, but it can’t be heavily modified.
When the Historical Buildings list works, its good to use. The MET is a nationally designated historical site. It will not and can not, and should never be cut up like a pie.
Better to cut up a piece of amazing architecture- one that’s stood for 86 years- then let it sit empty? Never.
It truely is unfortunate that its sitting empty, but a “megaplex”? C'mon.
I’m sorry but I really don’t think so. The only reason I suggested RHPS is because for some reason that film’s always had really great “legs”… :P (industry term for sustainability, but a pun you should understand if you’ve seen it)
But really, not a lot of pictures, old or new, are going to be sustain crowds. RHPS, which would still be monumental in business still wouldn’t have what it takes to keep that place open. It has to be something VERY different, and that maybe necessarily means NO MOVIES.
Thanks, Jack. Are you from Film-Tech? I’m quite aware of the costs. The only problem with expense is transporting the print, plus $500 a night. PLUS: Huge costs/fines to replace these reels/prints.
I saw a print of “A Clockwork Orange” from the 1970s that was here in Winnipeg recently and when the projector started up… SNAP! It was also scratched, had dirt embedded on it (like watching the movie through a transparent Dalmation), and weak in spots.
I really just want to know why Winnipeg has the Historical Building’s list if a building can be “voted” off of it? That’s a rediculous loophole that defeats the whole purpose of even having a list.
I hope my photo’s kind of show that it really wasn’t as bad as they had said. Sure, some quickly-done renovations in the seventies gave way to gravity when the building was without heat and did the freeze-thaw cycle… But we just moved onto an abandoned horse ranch to fix up, and the office ceiling in one of the barns came crashing to the floor. Are we going to tear down this beautiful building? NO! We’re going to put a new roof on it (tin/metal due to the high wind out here ripping off shingles like nothing) and we’re going to erect a new ceiling. Case open, case closed.
I am eagerly awaiting that DVD, and I will, as always, update this forum.
Ok… sarcasm and mild optimism don’t materialize they way you really want on the internet.
I know its a huge expense. Its just a random idea. And I just meant that the City would open it up (no rent), but it was really all mild, sarcastic optimism. And as for staffing… minimum wage. Two in the box, four in the candybar, two ushers and some security. You obviously wouldn’t come close to filling all 1400 seats, but the idea of this beautiful (although not as beautiful as the Cap, but still magnificent) building celebrating its 20th anniversary of abandonement… well, that sucks.
Plus, if the drive-in opens next month, we have that to look forward too, right?
Just to clarify: RHPS showed in Winnipeg for 10 years originally. I didn’t mean it showed at the MET.
And now, with the City only charging the “Entertainment” or “Amusement” tax on cinema admissions (conveinient that the Goldeyes aren’t charged now, isn’t it?) to support and fund the “arts” (MTC, Rainbow, etc.), why not put some used booth equipment in, along with some used concession equipment (a popper and drink tower) and some used refurbished seats, and sell tickets to show RHPS in order to further fund the arts? I guess they maybe don’t care since they cut out financial funding from entertainment from the Bombers and Goldeyes, so they don’t really care about how much to put in.
In reality though, the Met could be simply restored to show one of the biggest cult classics of all time once a week (RHPS on Saturdays) for roughly $231,000 (refubished main floor seats, used projector, new screen and popper, plus the need for carpet which I didn’t factor in. That’s not that bad, and you wouldn’t have to do the balcony until necessary, but atleast its a small step to make the building loved and used again).
I hate to pop all of your bubbles, but here’s more reality:
It is VERY hard to get older film titles. When you can get them, they are very expensive; the older they are usually means the more expensive, because the studios don’t want to lend out their few copies of older/rarer films, and because the older they are usually means the more delicate they are.
Also- you’re not going to be able to get any first run titles, not with the Towne 8 there showing pretty much all the big hits. See, the multiplex created competition buffer zones, and the Met clearly falls within that. A big chain like Cineplex wouldn’t even have some leeway towards that.
If there was anyway it could show film again, I would say the city should show the Rocky Horror Picture Show every Saturday night. They could just open it for that one night, because if its such a money drain already, why not open it up once a week? Couldn’t hurt. RHPS showed here for 10 years originally, and then later on, played three consecutive years at the Rex/Regent during a revival.
And, I’m sure this wouldn’t work, but I believe the front wall could be large enough if you removed the procenium- so why not relocate IMAX there? :P
Announced it will not “fully open” this summer because of a lack of 35mm prints.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Shamrock-Drive-In/108562265899128
Besides cinema 3 being converted to a swimming pool with a small spiral water slide, the theatre is mostly in tact from when it was a movie house. New front ends were built in all three rooms to accommodate stages for lectures, bands, and other presentations. Cinemas 1 and 2 had balconies at the back and sloped in the front. You accessed both sections from the entrance in the middle, centre of the auditorium. All the original seats are still there, with Cinema 2’s front end seats on the sloped floor removed for general admission concerts.
The original twin Garrick building was built and opened in 1968. According to my records, it was built from the same steel frame as the original single-screen Garrick that opened in 1928. That original Garrick had a similar layout.
Really miss seeing movies here.
This should now be changed to closed.
Seating counts under Famous Players: Alto (#1) 532 Rio (#2) 371 Bijou (#3) 297
Not sure what Landmark’s seating counts were, but it looks like they swapped seats in the Alto and Bijou when they took over and increased legroom.
Unfortunately, this listing should now read ‘demolished.’
If anyone has any interior shots from over the years, please contact me. I’m trying to archive as much as I can about it.
Any photos in particular of the twin auditoriums or the round concession stand closer to #1 would be great!
A beautiful little theatre. I have never been there but would love to check it out. Its gorgeous.
Here’s a link, with some great pics under the “History” tab:
http://www.lidotheatre.ca/flash.htm
GREAT!
Let’s encourage people to use cell phones in auditoriums!
The web address for that article:
View link
Scary to think that Magnifico thinks, word-for-word: “if someone wants to tear it down to put an office building up, we would look at that, too.”
The city’s had it sitting around on their “to-do list”… why not just spring the $5 million to restore it and make it a fantastic venue? $5 million is nothing compared to what the city usually spends on anything, and that way they could save the Met and maybe b8ulldoze the Centennial Concert Hall (since it has only stood sincethe 1970s). Don’t chastise me, but I hope you kind of understand what I mean.
I can’t see what I’m typing right now because there’s no side arrow to allow me to scroll down in this text box, so please bear with me.
This is from CBC dated July 4:
Future of Winnipeg’s Met theatre uncertain
Last Updated Tue, 04 Jul 2006 12:05:42 EDT
CBC News
Developers have abandoned a plan to convert the old Metropolitan Theatre into a rock ‘n’ roll museum, putting the future of the downtown Winnipeg theatre on shaky ground.
The downtown development agency, CentreVenture, had been working with the idea of restoring the 87-year-old heritage building and transforming it into a non-profit museum that would showcase Canadian rock stars.
But a formal proposal expected from a group of Winnipeg business people didn’t materialize.
A spokesperson for CentreVenture said this week that the proposal is not going ahead in its current form.
Coun. Franco Magnifico, who chairs the city’s downtown development committee, told CBC News there is still considerable interest in the old Met.
“I’d love to preserve if, if we can in an economical and efficient manner. On the other hand, I don’t want to see it sit vacant for 20 years because it has some historical value,” Magnifico said.
“We have great historical buildings in Winnipeg, and we have maintained a lot of them, and we try and preserve whatever we can. It doesn’t mean you can save them all,” he added.
“Down the road, I guess if there is no other option, if someone wants to tear it down to put an office building up, we would look at that, too. But that hasn’t come to the table. We would love to save that building.”
Only theatre left of its kind
Magnifico plans to meet with the business group that was planning to submit the hall of fame proposal to determine if anything can be done to revive the plan for the national historic site.
“Maybe the stumbling block we are talking about isn’t as fantastic as stopping the project entirely,” he said.
“I don’t know why they pulled out the way they did … I just want to find out.”
Meanwhile, CentreVenture is again calling for development proposals for the Met, located on Donald Street across from the new MTS Centre.
The neo-classical style Met is the only theatre of its kind remaining in Winnipeg in its original form; other similar theatres, such as the Capitol, have been demolished or renovated.
The 24,000-square-foot building has twin staircases leading to a large mezzanine level, as well as original mirrors, plasterwork and wall fixtures.
The domed plaster ceiling and massive chandelier still hang in the 2,500-seat auditorium, although CentreVenture officials note “serious plaster problems” have been discovered.
The building has been mostly unused for almost 20 years, although it has been heated. CentreVenture admits it would require “significant work” to bring the building up to code.
Burt wasn’t involved… he’s just had business dealings with them all in the past, so it was more to boost his ego, because, he’s only, like, Winnipeg’s biggest rock star! rolls eyes.
I can’t wait to see more of your pictures of the Capitol. I think it was much nier than the met, even after it was split, although, the Met has a beautiful facade.
If only the Capitol’s guts could be in the Met’s shell.
And, don’t chastise me, but I love the Met too, its just that I think the Capitol was much, much more beautiful and I think they went more for saving the Met because it was never split. And I can’t help but wonder what happened to the Cap’s chandelier (anyone have pictures of it?) or why the Met was never hacked up?
Apparently CentreVenture has posted another call for proposals because most of the investors in the museum pulled out.
Didn’t the Colony have a huge staircase almost the width of the building? (I have dial-up, so I’m anxiously awaiting the pictures to load).
Oh, and IMHO, that woman who ran FOM completely ran the group into the ground.
Hasn’t Empire Theatres taken over this cinema?
Anyone have any pictures of this theatre?
I’ll see you there!
The seats aren’t original. They’re 70s crap. Only about 30% (the frame) of each seat exists still. They’ve removed all fabric, etc.
The Met is a NATIONALLY designated historical site. Its listed as a Grade 1 (the strictest). Its can’t be heavily modified. They’d be welcome to remove the sloped floor, and return the place to its original state, but it can’t be heavily modified.
Oh- and one more thing: The competition buffer zones. You’d have one hell of a fight getting prints, if any.
NEVER! NEVER! NEVER!
When the Historical Buildings list works, its good to use. The MET is a nationally designated historical site. It will not and can not, and should never be cut up like a pie.
Better to cut up a piece of amazing architecture- one that’s stood for 86 years- then let it sit empty? Never.
It truely is unfortunate that its sitting empty, but a “megaplex”? C'mon.
As far as I understand, the Rock Museum idea is nearing the status of “DONE DEAL”.
Garro,
I’m sorry but I really don’t think so. The only reason I suggested RHPS is because for some reason that film’s always had really great “legs”… :P (industry term for sustainability, but a pun you should understand if you’ve seen it)
But really, not a lot of pictures, old or new, are going to be sustain crowds. RHPS, which would still be monumental in business still wouldn’t have what it takes to keep that place open. It has to be something VERY different, and that maybe necessarily means NO MOVIES.
Thanks, Jack. Are you from Film-Tech? I’m quite aware of the costs. The only problem with expense is transporting the print, plus $500 a night. PLUS: Huge costs/fines to replace these reels/prints.
I saw a print of “A Clockwork Orange” from the 1970s that was here in Winnipeg recently and when the projector started up… SNAP! It was also scratched, had dirt embedded on it (like watching the movie through a transparent Dalmation), and weak in spots.
I really just want to know why Winnipeg has the Historical Building’s list if a building can be “voted” off of it? That’s a rediculous loophole that defeats the whole purpose of even having a list.
I hope my photo’s kind of show that it really wasn’t as bad as they had said. Sure, some quickly-done renovations in the seventies gave way to gravity when the building was without heat and did the freeze-thaw cycle… But we just moved onto an abandoned horse ranch to fix up, and the office ceiling in one of the barns came crashing to the floor. Are we going to tear down this beautiful building? NO! We’re going to put a new roof on it (tin/metal due to the high wind out here ripping off shingles like nothing) and we’re going to erect a new ceiling. Case open, case closed.
I am eagerly awaiting that DVD, and I will, as always, update this forum.
Ok… sarcasm and mild optimism don’t materialize they way you really want on the internet.
I know its a huge expense. Its just a random idea. And I just meant that the City would open it up (no rent), but it was really all mild, sarcastic optimism. And as for staffing… minimum wage. Two in the box, four in the candybar, two ushers and some security. You obviously wouldn’t come close to filling all 1400 seats, but the idea of this beautiful (although not as beautiful as the Cap, but still magnificent) building celebrating its 20th anniversary of abandonement… well, that sucks.
Plus, if the drive-in opens next month, we have that to look forward too, right?
Just to clarify: RHPS showed in Winnipeg for 10 years originally. I didn’t mean it showed at the MET.
And now, with the City only charging the “Entertainment” or “Amusement” tax on cinema admissions (conveinient that the Goldeyes aren’t charged now, isn’t it?) to support and fund the “arts” (MTC, Rainbow, etc.), why not put some used booth equipment in, along with some used concession equipment (a popper and drink tower) and some used refurbished seats, and sell tickets to show RHPS in order to further fund the arts? I guess they maybe don’t care since they cut out financial funding from entertainment from the Bombers and Goldeyes, so they don’t really care about how much to put in.
In reality though, the Met could be simply restored to show one of the biggest cult classics of all time once a week (RHPS on Saturdays) for roughly $231,000 (refubished main floor seats, used projector, new screen and popper, plus the need for carpet which I didn’t factor in. That’s not that bad, and you wouldn’t have to do the balcony until necessary, but atleast its a small step to make the building loved and used again).
I hate to pop all of your bubbles, but here’s more reality:
It is VERY hard to get older film titles. When you can get them, they are very expensive; the older they are usually means the more expensive, because the studios don’t want to lend out their few copies of older/rarer films, and because the older they are usually means the more delicate they are.
Also- you’re not going to be able to get any first run titles, not with the Towne 8 there showing pretty much all the big hits. See, the multiplex created competition buffer zones, and the Met clearly falls within that. A big chain like Cineplex wouldn’t even have some leeway towards that.
If there was anyway it could show film again, I would say the city should show the Rocky Horror Picture Show every Saturday night. They could just open it for that one night, because if its such a money drain already, why not open it up once a week? Couldn’t hurt. RHPS showed here for 10 years originally, and then later on, played three consecutive years at the Rex/Regent during a revival.
And, I’m sure this wouldn’t work, but I believe the front wall could be large enough if you removed the procenium- so why not relocate IMAX there? :P