In this view it seems obvious that the marquee was shortened to make way for a wider street. I’m guessing the vertical was replaced because the new one was much cheaper to maintain.
I have heard that the structural supports for the vertical have greatly weakened over the years, making the idea of putting it back a very expensive proposition. I think someone from the LJ organization mentions it above.
The space at the York is definitely better. I think it’s better suited for business and cheaper to maintain. They probably got a better landlord out of it as well.
As one who remembers the theatre as a dingy twin in the 80’s this is fantastic to see. I salute the effort and hope it serves the community for years to come.
Brian and I are thinking alike on this one. The theatre clearly adds something to the city. But it is also clearly not a highly lucrative operation. Little is gained and much is lost by taxing it to death.
I think that city amusement tax is a dinosaur from a bygone era. Back in the day running a movie theatre was lucrative. Nowadays assessing this tax is like trying to get blood from a stone. Not surprisingly it is taking government officials many decades to catch up to this fact.
I heard once that it was the building owner who removed the decorative glass from the center of the grand window. The story goes that he did a poor job of packing and the window was destroyed in transit to another part of the U.S.
You guys are looking at it from the standpoint of the emotions you have for these buildings (which I share, by the way).
My grandfather, Mason Rapp, was the last to run the firm of Rapp & Rapp. It was work to those guys. It was a way to support their families. The guys at B&K would call and say: we need a theater of so many seats on such and such a site. Then Rapp & Rapp would go to work.
If the firm were in business today they would be designing multiplexes, because that is what the market demands. Or they might be doing something else altogether. In fact my grandfather had to find other things to do after the big theater work dried up in the 1940’s. He designed bank buildings for instance.
While I don’t think it exactly thrilled him to see movie palaces demolished in the 50’s & 60’s, it also didn’t give him much pause. He went on about his life with only slight reflection on the glory days of the 1920’s.
Good times come and go, and you roll with the punches.
Not to be a downer, but it is possible that he was not destroyed by this fact. He was paid well to contruct his buildings. By the time of his death, assuming he was retired many years, it all may have faded into the rear-view mirror.
The soft opening part I get. But I think they could’ve done a more exciting promotion. Let’s say they paid admission for everyone that showed up for a few first run movies, and advertised enough to get the word out in the community. The buzz and goodwill generated by something like that would be well worth a day’s losses.
That is so bad. It doesn’t bother me on the Oriental or Palace. But this is a symbol of the city.
Fourth photo down. What is this?
http://radiotimeline.com/am89wls.htm
Welcome to HELL!
In this view it seems obvious that the marquee was shortened to make way for a wider street. I’m guessing the vertical was replaced because the new one was much cheaper to maintain.
Great photo. But somehow it doesn’t communicate the size of the place.
That ABC installation was pretty elaborate. Cool post Brian.
The frame of the roof sign was still up there in 1960. Interesting.
Waiting, waiting, waiting…
I have heard that the structural supports for the vertical have greatly weakened over the years, making the idea of putting it back a very expensive proposition. I think someone from the LJ organization mentions it above.
That is the ticket usher? He looks like he is selling Cocaine.
The space at the York is definitely better. I think it’s better suited for business and cheaper to maintain. They probably got a better landlord out of it as well.
It’s a shame they don’t do something with that lobby space. After nearly 50 years of hibernation, it’s obvious there is no motivation to do so.
Restoration in progress:
http://stageoneproductionsdp.org/UpcomingEvents.aspx
Account of the reopening:
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20111112/news/711129895/
As one who remembers the theatre as a dingy twin in the 80’s this is fantastic to see. I salute the effort and hope it serves the community for years to come.
Auditorium picture here:
http://cinewiki.wikispaces.com/Regal+Theater+and+African-American+Exhibition+in+Chicago,+The+
A picture of 63rd & Stony Island, showing the Tower Theatre’s tower:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29821940@N00/5640714336/in/photostream
Brian and I are thinking alike on this one. The theatre clearly adds something to the city. But it is also clearly not a highly lucrative operation. Little is gained and much is lost by taxing it to death.
I think that city amusement tax is a dinosaur from a bygone era. Back in the day running a movie theatre was lucrative. Nowadays assessing this tax is like trying to get blood from a stone. Not surprisingly it is taking government officials many decades to catch up to this fact.
I heard once that it was the building owner who removed the decorative glass from the center of the grand window. The story goes that he did a poor job of packing and the window was destroyed in transit to another part of the U.S.
These were taken in 2011? The theater is in much better shape than I thought it would be.
Ziggy: I think it is possible. My whole point is that it isn’t a certainty.
You guys are looking at it from the standpoint of the emotions you have for these buildings (which I share, by the way).
My grandfather, Mason Rapp, was the last to run the firm of Rapp & Rapp. It was work to those guys. It was a way to support their families. The guys at B&K would call and say: we need a theater of so many seats on such and such a site. Then Rapp & Rapp would go to work.
If the firm were in business today they would be designing multiplexes, because that is what the market demands. Or they might be doing something else altogether. In fact my grandfather had to find other things to do after the big theater work dried up in the 1940’s. He designed bank buildings for instance.
While I don’t think it exactly thrilled him to see movie palaces demolished in the 50’s & 60’s, it also didn’t give him much pause. He went on about his life with only slight reflection on the glory days of the 1920’s.
Good times come and go, and you roll with the punches.
Not to be a downer, but it is possible that he was not destroyed by this fact. He was paid well to contruct his buildings. By the time of his death, assuming he was retired many years, it all may have faded into the rear-view mirror.
Really cool picture. That block in the foreground was gone before my time. It looks much bigger with Daley Plaza on it.
The soft opening part I get. But I think they could’ve done a more exciting promotion. Let’s say they paid admission for everyone that showed up for a few first run movies, and advertised enough to get the word out in the community. The buzz and goodwill generated by something like that would be well worth a day’s losses.
Nice find Brian. I’ve never seen a good shot of the box office and entrance.