Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many cities with lesser legacies have managed to save an historic movie palace (or more than one), with original interiors retored. Somehow they have managed to be viable, whether or not it's solely due to self-generated revenues from cinema functions. It can be done. I don't understand why seemingly it can't be done in Philadelphia.
The stories of each city are unique. Can Philly support such a venue? If it could, it seems someone would have stepped froward to do it in the 11 years it has sat vacant. Who coughed up the money in these other cites? Where were these venues located? What needs did they fill? Were any of these cities' major performing arts institutes in need of a permanent home?
For every yet to be named city that successfully repurposed their movie palaces for the long term, there are many more cities for which the dynamics were not in place to make it happen. I hear all the angst about Philly lacking the ability to make it happen here. "Philly" in this case means people with ways and means. Capital is not unlimited. People are investing in Philly - from big names like Bartstein & Dranoff and small folks like my neighbors. Apparently those investing in the city do not see how to make restoring the 2000 seat Boyd a viable venture. I doubt they have a death wish for the Boyd. It may just be that the conditions and needs in these unnamed cities do not fit with those in Philly. After 11 years of vacancy, the owners wish to demolish the place. Someone has come in with what I consider a better alternative. Either way, it appears the venue is going to change.
I appreciate hearing everyone's heart in this. Perhaps if I lived here more than 11 years and knew the place well, I would be coming from a more emotional place about this myself. The Philly I know is one of a boarded and ugly eyesore on Chestnut. Where some of you see a lost opportunity, I see an opportunity realized.
The stories of each city are unique. Can Philly support such a venue? If it could, it seems someone would have stepped froward to do it in the 11 years it has sat vacant. Who coughed up the money in these other cites? Where were these venues located? What needs did they fill? Were any of these cities' major performing arts institutes in need of a permanent home?
For every yet to be named city that successfully repurposed their movie palaces for the long term, there are many more cities for which the dynamics were not in place to make it happen. I hear all the angst about Philly lacking the ability to make it happen here. "Philly" in this case means people with ways and means. Capital is not unlimited. People are investing in Philly - from big names like Bartstein & Dranoff and small folks like my neighbors. Apparently those investing in the city do not see how to make restoring the 2000 seat Boyd a viable venture. I doubt they have a death wish for the Boyd. It may just be that the conditions and needs in these unnamed cities do not fit with those in Philly. After 11 years of vacancy, the owners wish to demolish the place. Someone has come in with what I consider a better alternative. Either way, it appears the venue is going to change.
I appreciate hearing everyone's heart in this. Perhaps if I lived here more than 11 years and knew the place well, I would be coming from a more emotional place about this myself. The Philly I know is one of a boarded and ugly eyesore on Chestnut. Where some of you see a lost opportunity, I see an opportunity realized.
I have been in and around Philly all my life... and I agree. Demolish the Boyd. It's a blight on Chestnut Street and has to go. Keep the facade. Philly has done such a great job preserving history but it seems like the residents of this city need to keep EVERY historic building. There comes a time where some are just too derelict to repair without making a profit. Point in case, people held up the construction of a highrise in University City because they wanted to preserve two rundown brownstones. It's a little ridiculous sometimes. No one is proposing to come in and level Society Hill (Oh wait)... lol... or Fitler Square, they want to demolish the rear of a derelict abandoned building.
Could the city declare it a historical landmark thus destroying it's value so that it could be profitable the way it is? Imo just build a highrise on top of it and I'm happy.
Not surprisingly, she laments the pending gutting of the Boyd (and the Royal). Who doesn't? Yet she seems to offer little answer other than let it sit rusting in the middle of a CC block. The Boyd was lavish indeed at one time. It was built at a time when ladies and gentlemen dressed up to the 9s to attend a motion picture. Today, folks show up in jeans and sneakers to attend opera at the Academy. After 11 years sitting vacant, imagine what it would take to restore the interior to its original splendor. What combination of government and private investment would it take to do so? And which combination of arts organizations is sitting ready to fill its seats so that it can sustain itself? And which other venues would see their facility suffer as a result of losing bookings - the Forrest? the Merriam? the Academy? the Kimmell?
Don't confuse me with someone who wants to gut historic Philadelphia. But at some point, a decision needs to be made. For those in favor of restoring the Boyd, I need more than the argument "Once it's gone, it's gone." Let me know how much longer we should let it sit rusting on Chestnut waiting for conditions to change to make restoration viable? 5 years? 10 years? 43 years like the Royal? Forever? And who should pay for the carrying costs in the meantime? Seriously - what's the plan?
The stories of each city are unique. Can Philly support such a venue? If it could, it seems someone would have stepped froward to do it in the 11 years it has sat vacant. Who coughed up the money in these other cites? Where were these venues located? What needs did they fill? Were any of these cities' major performing arts institutes in need of a permanent home?
For every yet to be named city that successfully repurposed their movie palaces for the long term, there are many more cities for which the dynamics were not in place to make it happen. I hear all the angst about Philly lacking the ability to make it happen here. "Philly" in this case means people with ways and means. Capital is not unlimited. People are investing in Philly - from big names like Bartstein & Dranoff and small folks like my neighbors. Apparently those investing in the city do not see how to make restoring the 2000 seat Boyd a viable venture. I doubt they have a death wish for the Boyd. It may just be that the conditions and needs in these unnamed cities do not fit with those in Philly. After 11 years of vacancy, the owners wish to demolish the place. Someone has come in with what I consider a better alternative. Either way, it appears the venue is going to change.
I appreciate hearing everyone's heart in this. Perhaps if I lived here more than 11 years and knew the place well, I would be coming from a more emotional place about this myself. The Philly I know is one of a boarded and ugly eyesore on Chestnut. Where some of you see a lost opportunity, I see an opportunity realized.
It does seem (at least on this thread) like people who don't actually remember it are the ones for whom it's more easy to condemn it to the wrecking ball.
The Philadelphia I grew up in (I was born in the 70's), was a place in which the Sameric(Boyd) was a grand theatre. I remember waiting in line on Chestnut Street (where there were many theatres) to see all of the original star wars movies on the big screen (...and the screen at the Sameric was ENORMOUS), in that majestic auditorium. The Sameric is where premieres for high-profile Philadelphia movies (eg: Rocky, Philadelphia) would be held. Celebrities would attend. It was a pretty magical place. There is nothing like it in the city. It's a big loss. It's especially sad to have seen all of the lesser theatres on Chestnut disappear (except the Prince!), and then watch for years as the greatest of them declined, was ultimately abandoned, and then sat empty and neglected while it rotted beyond easy renovation. That theatre somehow survived through some of the city's darkest years in the late 80's to mid 90's. And now the recent resurgence of Center City, with all of that development money being thrown around, made some hopeful that the theatre might have held on long enough to finally be saved. People fought the good fight to try to save it for several years, but now that fight's just about over. The tragedy is partly that it can't be saved now, and party that it was even allowed to get to this point in the first place. IMO it's not something to be happy about. There are other things to be happy about, but not this.
You see, the Philadelphia I grew up in was also a place where it was common practice for unscrupulous landlords (See: Sam Rappaport, the godfather of blight) to purchase, and then willfully neglect historical properties for years and years, hoping to maximize profits when someone finally swooped in to buy it. In many cases, until they were so far gone that there was "no option" but to to destroy the building. There are a few happy preservation stories, like the Victory building at 10th & Chestnut, but most were not so happy. There's a lot of precedent for this sort of thing in Center City. So what's happening to the Boyd is like the bad sort of deja-vu for anyone who witnessed all of the fabricated blight.
And in case you think I was being cagey about "unnamed other cities", as your post implies, you can find names if you scroll back a few pages in this thread. Or in the pictures that were linked to one of my recent posts on the matter.
Not surprisingly, she laments the pending gutting of the Boyd (and the Royal). Who doesn't? Yet she seems to offer little answer other than let it sit rusting in the middle of a CC block. The Boyd was lavish indeed at one time. It was built at a time when ladies and gentlemen dressed up to the 9s to attend a motion picture. Today, folks show up in jeans and sneakers to attend opera at the Academy. After 11 years sitting vacant, imagine what it would take to restore the interior to its original splendor. What combination of government and private investment would it take to do so? And which combination of arts organizations is sitting ready to fill its seats so that it can sustain itself? And which other venues would see their facility suffer as a result of losing bookings - the Forrest? the Merriam? the Academy? the Kimmell?
Don't confuse me with someone who wants to gut historic Philadelphia. But at some point, a decision needs to be made. For those in favor of restoring the Boyd, I need more than the argument "Once it's gone, it's gone." Let me know how much longer we should let it sit rusting on Chestnut waiting for conditions to change to make restoration viable? 5 years? 10 years? 43 years like the Royal? Forever? And who should pay for the carrying costs in the meantime? Seriously - what's the plan?
In her second to last paragraph, Inga says:
"In the history of theater rescue stories, seven years is nothing. The cities that have restored their great movie places - and dozens have - devoted decades to the effort. New York is just putting the finishing touches on the Loew's King Theatre in downtown Brooklyn. It had been closed since 1978, but will soon have a new life as a performing arts center. The transformation would never have happened without the help of the borough president, who persuaded the city and state to kick in seed money. The Boyd and the Royal also need government champions and public funds to succeed."
I think she's got it. There's certainly been a leadership issue. Like, getting the theatre on the Nat'l Rgister of Historic Places (like the Fox in Atlanta, or St Louis) could have helped.
"In the history of theater rescue stories, seven years is nothing. The cities that have restored their great movie places - and dozens have - devoted decades to the effort. New York is just putting the finishing touches on the Loew's King Theatre in downtown Brooklyn. It had been closed since 1978, but will soon have a new life as a performing arts center. The transformation would never have happened without the help of the borough president, who persuaded the city and state to kick in seed money. The Boyd and the Royal also need government champions and public funds to succeed."
I think she's got it. There's certainly been a leadership issue. Like, getting the theatre on the Nat'l Rgister of Historic Places (like the Fox in Atlanta, or St Louis) could have helped.
Yes, I read the article. But I posed some questions to those advocating waiting. Answers?
Yes, I read the article. But I posed some questions to those advocating waiting. Answers?
Not sure who you mean exactly. Me? (I thought it was clear that I've already accepted the probable doom, but won't cheer it on)
Some of the questions you're demanding answers for honestly seemed a bit rhetorical. But I think the necessity for seed money from city state (and fed) is a fair answer for where money might come from. There is demonstrated precedent for that. And I think getting the property on the National Register is a fair answer for a possible course of action.
(edit: expanded answer)
Hypothetically, I don't think it would directly compete against the Forrest/Kimmel/Academy/Merriam for their primary functions. It's a different sort of a space. It's not really most appropriate to house a stage or musical company. It's a true movie palace.
I do think that there are many factors lined up against the Boyd. Not the least is that movie theatres in general are increasingly becoming historical relics. It's hard to keep any movie theatre open in the era of big screen tv and home video (hence all of the gimmickry, including 3D, faux&real imax, and luxury dinner theatres such as which is being proposed for the site). There is little chance that any type of movie theatre in that location is going to be a big moneymaker. How to deal with obsolete historical structures is always a difficult issue. No one wants a rusting hulk. It would be most appropriate for gala events, and for movies (it's large enough to accomodate a true IMAX). I wonder if the increasing population, and wealth in Center City will correlate for a greater demand for such activities?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Inga weighs in
