Concerning “College Point” I found this article; it sounds like the project is called “University Gateway” now and the theaters are no longer part of the plan. View link
Unfortunately, the portion of the terazzo that was in line with the sidewalk was destroyed in 1990. The portion going into the lobby remains. I’m told that some of the terrazzo was, incidentally, salvaged and is in fact in front of a local grocer, although I haven’t seen it for myself. The Adelphi was built in 1917 for the Ascher Brothers vaudeville circuit (the name in fact means “Brotherly Love”). The lobby area recieved an Art Deco remodeling in the early 1930s, although water damage has revealed the outlines of the old beaux arts plaster that had been removed from the walls, as well as a few other decors that have been in place since. Mosaic tilework appears to exist under the unattractive, stained carpet. The men’s room has been remodeled fairly recently, but the women’s room is fairly intact, although the real estate office next door which owns the building has annexed the original stalls and the theater’s bathrooms are in the former lounge. The one-time bowling alley upstairs, although divided into studios in the 40s or 50s, retains elaborate plaster grilles in the ceiling. The auditorium was partially remodeled in a modern style in the 1940s, really just layers of drywall, plus a layer of rockwool and fabric as acoustic paneling, which unfortunately has obscured or destroyed much of the detail in the auditorium that would make it attractive to a restorer, although the theater is quite restorable. The Adelphi never had much of a stage (perhaps 10 feet deep), and seems to have been built solely for movies, as there is no stagehouse (although the fact that the auditorium does not go all the way back to the street suggests it was designed to have one), and the rear wall appears to have been popped out in the transition to sound, to have a place for a speaker. With the addition of Cinemascope more alterations came. The current screen, though very large, is about twice the width of the proscenium, which has been removed for about the first 6 feet to accomodate voice of the theater speakers. The original backstage cavity is filled with old carpet. The auditorium, although shabby looking, is restorable. It’s been covered in very cheap green paint, much of which is now peeling and taking a layer of face plaster with it, and some of which was carelessly sprayed onto the masking curtain. It’s a decent neighborhood theater with lots of character, and I hope it’s put back to use one of these days.
I’d imagine they would be able to retain the name, most buildings do. Like the Sears tower for example, Sears doesn’t have a thing to do with it anymore.
It’s just unfortunate that there’s no place like this for such places. They certainly have the same kind of architectual merit, and the same sort of escapist quality. After all, the Schubert/Majestic is on here, and I really don’t think that it qualifies, i’m not even sure it’s ever played film. I agree that they don’t really qualify, but it seems a shame
Yeah, I sort of wish we could list non-cinematic theatres on this site. It seems a shame to not have, say, the Chicago Auditorium on here. And there’s another gray area- the Auditorium did have the second largest theatre organ at one time.
I went there for the first time yesterday, and i’ll never go again. Half the sidelights in the 300-some seat I was in were burnt out, and the print was absolutely abysmal at no more than 2 weeks old. It was stretched on the pletter from start to finish, so every frame had horizontal scratches and vertical scratches. The stretching also made the audio horrible, it had static on everything. And on top of all that, it was slightly off focus. Just awful. Plus a red exit sign right next to the screen. The only kind words I have for it are that they didn’t show a slideshow before the 15 minutes of commercials, and the seats were at least halfway comfortable. The lobby did look art deco though- is it certain that they demolished both the orginal lobby and auditorium? The three-floor layout seems fairly consistent. All in all though, the exterior is the only worthwhile part of this theater. I want my 9.50 back.
And your comments comparing to the Genesee simply don’t ring true- a 600 seat theatre is inevitably going to stay much closer to budget than one four times its size. It also is inevitably going to draw a completely different type of use than a 2400 seat venue; it would in fact be much easier to keep booked because there are many more events and types of events that can draw a few hundred people than events large enough to fill 2400 seats in the suburbs. Restoration arguments are likewise unfair- the Genesee went over budget because of the scope of the project. The DuPage doesn’t have all that much to be repaired, and there’s certainly no demolition and expansion to include in restoration.
I promise you that if the DuPage falls, Lombard will regret it. Clearly, if the problem is “the money isn’t there”, the logical next step is to wait for it to come. Money can come, but once the building is gone, it’s not coming back. And, looking at the opponent’s own finances page, only $1.7 million of the $4.6 million in public funds comes from TIFs; the rest is money earmarked for projects precisely like this.
Now, before you go back to pointing at the Gennessee as a warning sign, which seems to be one of your main arguments, why not consider wheter what you are saying is true? Is it in fact true that because one somewhat nearby theatre has gone over budget and hasn’t yet found its programming niche, that all theatres of all sizes in all communities must therefore be failures, if city-owned? Before jumping to any further conclusions, I suggest you investigate more than one example. Here, I even spent a couple minutes actually using the valuable resources of this site to find a few for you to look at. These are just a few examples of city-owned theatres. /theaters/21/ /theaters/235/ /theaters/710/ /theaters/2957/ /theaters/3085/ /theaters/7560/ /theaters/327/ /theaters/4729/ /theaters/2395/ /theaters/1224/ /theaters/8765/ /theaters/2513/ /theaters/6927/ /theaters/4498/
Your arguments may be able to sway public opinion, but if you think that you can come to a community of people who care about and have knowledge about theatres and decieve us, you’re sorely mistaken.
Because certainly, all this negativity and lack of imagination could in no way affect their chances of success. Look. You go on and on about how the DuPage supporters didn’t have the money, and couldn’t do what they were trying to do. But with constant detractors like you, how can they possibly expect to raise money? It’s this kind of negative NIMBYism that keeps people from taking action in the first place. If people start thinking there’s no reason for them to contribute, that their effort will be hopeless, they’re not going to try to make something of it. Projects like this can only succeed if people approach the situation optimistically. It’s hard enough trying to preserve a building in the first place without an entire organization working against you. Let’s not even go into the practice of registering a similar domain name to the real website, or the way TIFs are actually used (hmm… Chicago used a TIF for its Theatre district, didn’t it? Somehow I don’t think that ticket sales bring all that much cash flow into city hall… but they couldn’t possibly know what they’re talking about) Don’t go around hailing yourself as some sort of heroic protector of the helpless taxpayer. There’s already enough people unwilling to pay a cent more that won’t directly help them- why don’t you take up the cause of the elderly paying for schools as part of their taxes? They certainly don’t go to school; why should they have to pay?
I don’t know… but I certainly agree that we should save some! After all, so many are gone already that we should try to save the few that are left. I wouldn’t say it’s so much like trying to drive a Model T down the Kennedy as it is to say, driving a Dusenberg down the Kennedy instead of a Honda- certainly not the most modern way, nor the most economical, but overall a vastly superior experience.
Concerning “College Point” I found this article; it sounds like the project is called “University Gateway” now and the theaters are no longer part of the plan. View link
I found these: View link
View link
Unfortunately, the portion of the terazzo that was in line with the sidewalk was destroyed in 1990. The portion going into the lobby remains. I’m told that some of the terrazzo was, incidentally, salvaged and is in fact in front of a local grocer, although I haven’t seen it for myself. The Adelphi was built in 1917 for the Ascher Brothers vaudeville circuit (the name in fact means “Brotherly Love”). The lobby area recieved an Art Deco remodeling in the early 1930s, although water damage has revealed the outlines of the old beaux arts plaster that had been removed from the walls, as well as a few other decors that have been in place since. Mosaic tilework appears to exist under the unattractive, stained carpet. The men’s room has been remodeled fairly recently, but the women’s room is fairly intact, although the real estate office next door which owns the building has annexed the original stalls and the theater’s bathrooms are in the former lounge. The one-time bowling alley upstairs, although divided into studios in the 40s or 50s, retains elaborate plaster grilles in the ceiling. The auditorium was partially remodeled in a modern style in the 1940s, really just layers of drywall, plus a layer of rockwool and fabric as acoustic paneling, which unfortunately has obscured or destroyed much of the detail in the auditorium that would make it attractive to a restorer, although the theater is quite restorable. The Adelphi never had much of a stage (perhaps 10 feet deep), and seems to have been built solely for movies, as there is no stagehouse (although the fact that the auditorium does not go all the way back to the street suggests it was designed to have one), and the rear wall appears to have been popped out in the transition to sound, to have a place for a speaker. With the addition of Cinemascope more alterations came. The current screen, though very large, is about twice the width of the proscenium, which has been removed for about the first 6 feet to accomodate voice of the theater speakers. The original backstage cavity is filled with old carpet. The auditorium, although shabby looking, is restorable. It’s been covered in very cheap green paint, much of which is now peeling and taking a layer of face plaster with it, and some of which was carelessly sprayed onto the masking curtain. It’s a decent neighborhood theater with lots of character, and I hope it’s put back to use one of these days.
In 1904-1905 the Iroquois was known as Hyde and Behman’s Music Hall
I’d imagine they would be able to retain the name, most buildings do. Like the Sears tower for example, Sears doesn’t have a thing to do with it anymore.
http://www.gabesplayerpianos.org/html/Center.html More photos of the Center here
Here is another
Here is a July 22, 1966 sidewalk view of the Paris from the Cushman collection
And here is another, closer one. Both from the Charles Cushman collection.
Here is a Dec 3, 1951 photo of the Grand and Paramount marquees at night
Here is a photo of the Fine Arts as the Studebaker/World Playhouse from the Charles Cushman collection, May 26, 1963
A photo featuring the marquee of the Stuart is available here as part of the Charles Cushman collection.
Here is a May 11, 1949 photo of the Garrick freom the Charles Cushman collection
Here is a photo of the Vendome shortly prior to its demolition.
View link Here’s an Oct 1944 photo of the Chicago from the Cushman collection with the vertical painted blue. I don’t know why…
It’s just unfortunate that there’s no place like this for such places. They certainly have the same kind of architectual merit, and the same sort of escapist quality. After all, the Schubert/Majestic is on here, and I really don’t think that it qualifies, i’m not even sure it’s ever played film. I agree that they don’t really qualify, but it seems a shame
Yeah, I sort of wish we could list non-cinematic theatres on this site. It seems a shame to not have, say, the Chicago Auditorium on here. And there’s another gray area- the Auditorium did have the second largest theatre organ at one time.
I went there for the first time yesterday, and i’ll never go again. Half the sidelights in the 300-some seat I was in were burnt out, and the print was absolutely abysmal at no more than 2 weeks old. It was stretched on the pletter from start to finish, so every frame had horizontal scratches and vertical scratches. The stretching also made the audio horrible, it had static on everything. And on top of all that, it was slightly off focus. Just awful. Plus a red exit sign right next to the screen. The only kind words I have for it are that they didn’t show a slideshow before the 15 minutes of commercials, and the seats were at least halfway comfortable. The lobby did look art deco though- is it certain that they demolished both the orginal lobby and auditorium? The three-floor layout seems fairly consistent. All in all though, the exterior is the only worthwhile part of this theater. I want my 9.50 back.
The Oscar site indicates Kodak’s capacity as 3500
And your comments comparing to the Genesee simply don’t ring true- a 600 seat theatre is inevitably going to stay much closer to budget than one four times its size. It also is inevitably going to draw a completely different type of use than a 2400 seat venue; it would in fact be much easier to keep booked because there are many more events and types of events that can draw a few hundred people than events large enough to fill 2400 seats in the suburbs. Restoration arguments are likewise unfair- the Genesee went over budget because of the scope of the project. The DuPage doesn’t have all that much to be repaired, and there’s certainly no demolition and expansion to include in restoration.
I promise you that if the DuPage falls, Lombard will regret it. Clearly, if the problem is “the money isn’t there”, the logical next step is to wait for it to come. Money can come, but once the building is gone, it’s not coming back. And, looking at the opponent’s own finances page, only $1.7 million of the $4.6 million in public funds comes from TIFs; the rest is money earmarked for projects precisely like this.
This Daily Herald article covers the reopening and includes a wonderful photo of the new marquee
So did they just rename it for Kitch value or what?
Now, before you go back to pointing at the Gennessee as a warning sign, which seems to be one of your main arguments, why not consider wheter what you are saying is true? Is it in fact true that because one somewhat nearby theatre has gone over budget and hasn’t yet found its programming niche, that all theatres of all sizes in all communities must therefore be failures, if city-owned? Before jumping to any further conclusions, I suggest you investigate more than one example. Here, I even spent a couple minutes actually using the valuable resources of this site to find a few for you to look at. These are just a few examples of city-owned theatres.
/theaters/21/
/theaters/235/
/theaters/710/
/theaters/2957/
/theaters/3085/
/theaters/7560/
/theaters/327/
/theaters/4729/
/theaters/2395/
/theaters/1224/
/theaters/8765/
/theaters/2513/
/theaters/6927/
/theaters/4498/
Your arguments may be able to sway public opinion, but if you think that you can come to a community of people who care about and have knowledge about theatres and decieve us, you’re sorely mistaken.
Because certainly, all this negativity and lack of imagination could in no way affect their chances of success. Look. You go on and on about how the DuPage supporters didn’t have the money, and couldn’t do what they were trying to do. But with constant detractors like you, how can they possibly expect to raise money? It’s this kind of negative NIMBYism that keeps people from taking action in the first place. If people start thinking there’s no reason for them to contribute, that their effort will be hopeless, they’re not going to try to make something of it. Projects like this can only succeed if people approach the situation optimistically. It’s hard enough trying to preserve a building in the first place without an entire organization working against you. Let’s not even go into the practice of registering a similar domain name to the real website, or the way TIFs are actually used (hmm… Chicago used a TIF for its Theatre district, didn’t it? Somehow I don’t think that ticket sales bring all that much cash flow into city hall… but they couldn’t possibly know what they’re talking about) Don’t go around hailing yourself as some sort of heroic protector of the helpless taxpayer. There’s already enough people unwilling to pay a cent more that won’t directly help them- why don’t you take up the cause of the elderly paying for schools as part of their taxes? They certainly don’t go to school; why should they have to pay?
I don’t know… but I certainly agree that we should save some! After all, so many are gone already that we should try to save the few that are left. I wouldn’t say it’s so much like trying to drive a Model T down the Kennedy as it is to say, driving a Dusenberg down the Kennedy instead of a Honda- certainly not the most modern way, nor the most economical, but overall a vastly superior experience.