Disappointed with lack of nice/new movie theater near CC. Plans in the future? (home, place)

[phillies2011]

Originally Posted by Better Than You

I used to go there all the time, but for as uncomfortable as it is, it's not worth $12 a ticket to me.

They just redid the theater, seats are very comfortable now. But it is very much a small screen experience... almost more a home theater.

[Better Than You]

Originally Posted by phillies2011

They just redid the theater, seats are very comfortable now. But it is very much a small screen experience... almost more a home theater.

Come to think of it, I've been there once since the remodeling and the seats ARE much better.

[ElijahAstin]

Originally Posted by phillies2011

You seem to not understand my point of view at all. My optimist dollars ain't going anywhere near that movie theater. I have no interest at all in investing in a movie theater, I'd imagine most who don't want the boyd demolished feel the same way.

I also do not dispute the fact that restoring the theater is cost prohibitive... TODAY IN 2015. The thing is I'm not much of an apocalypse guy so I have to imagine there's gonna be a 2016 and a 2017 etc all the way on and on and on.

Wake up. Check out all the lost buildings on Philaphilia and you'll just see hundreds of amazing works of architecture that were demolished because at some time in the past restoring them was cost prohibitive. The problem is the people of the past never imagined the wealth and investment that is going into the Philadelphia of 2015. I don't fault them for that. I've yet to meet anyone who can predict the future. But people too often want to act as though they can. To say definitively, this will NEVER EVER work.

How many of those demolished architectural treasures could have been the home of multi-million dollar condos today? Would you rather look at a boarded up architectural treasure for 20 years or a parking lot for a century?

I get that not everything old can be saved. I get that not everything old is worth saving. I even get that some of the new things that come along will be BETTER than the things they replaced. All I'm saying is Philadelphia used to be filled with grand old movie theaters like the Boyd and one by one they've all gone the way of the dodo bird. It just so happens that the Boyd was basically the grandest of them all and thankfully we still have it today. What is the harm in holding on to it to see if sometime in the future restoring it will be economical. I mean honestly the street fronting facade on Chestnut is what 30 feet wide? Let's put some new plywood up, paint a mural and call it a day. What would it honestly harm? Are there not enough of other lots in center city that are ripe for development including a move theater? Because once you lose the Boyd, that's it, it's gone and nothing like it is ever coming back. And to lose something so beautiful for something so god damn ephemeral that it's calling frigging "ipic" is the very definition of short sighted thinking.

Besides if you mothball that theater and say "we are never knocking this down, we are never going to destroy this theater, if you want to use this space you're going to have to figure out a way to restore it and make it work otherwise you can take hike." Well then I think you'd be surprised how quickly someone finally figures out a way to make it work.

Ipic's money can go take a walk, this BS can talk and talk all day.

I understand your point. I just disagree with it. The longer and longer we wait for the "right" buyer to restore the Boyd to historic specifications, the more and more it falls into disrepair, and the more and more expensive the necessary repairs become. We tried the waiting game for thirteen years. Continuing it would probably just keep a prime piece of real estate empty until the interior has to be demolished.

I wholeheartedly agree that we should invest our time and energy into protecting buildings of historic value that can be saved. I simply feel the Boyd is well past that point.

[phillies2011]

Originally Posted by ElijahAstin

I understand your point. I just disagree with it. The longer and longer we wait for the "right" buyer to restore the Boyd to historic specifications, the more and more it falls into disrepair, and the more and more expensive the necessary repairs become. We tried the waiting game for thirteen years. Continuing it would probably just keep a prime piece of real estate empty until the interior has to be demolished.

I wholeheartedly agree that we should invest our time and energy into protecting buildings of historic value that can be saved. I simply feel the Boyd is well past that point.

As long as they're sealed properly to prevent access from vandals and vagrants and most importantly the weather, buildings really don't deteriorate all that fast. At least not fast enough to make restoring it any more cost prohibitive than it currently is.

Again is it really that important that this specific piece property gets returned to active use immediately? It's been 13 years. What's another 10? Just off the top of my head I can think of 5 large properties within just a few blocks of the Boyd that are currently either vacant or surface parking lots. Why not at least say, "let's build on those before destroy an irreplaceable architectural treasure?"

Besides I don't even think we'll have to wait 10 years. As others mentioned Pearl has already purchased the Boyd and they have their hearts set on building a skyscraper right next to the Boyd that needs a boatload of variances. The Boyd may not be cost feasible to restore on its own, but part of a larger development that includes a high rise? Especially when considering restoring the Boyd would go a long way toward securing community support that they would not otherwise receive for the project?

If you tell people they can demolish something as long as they prove it's cost prohibitive to restore, most people will go out and figure out a way to prove it's restoration is cost prohibitive. But tell people the Boyd is staying even if we have to mothball it for a century? You'd be surprised how creative some of these developers are capable of getting. If I were a betting man I'd look for Pearl to propose their skyscraper again, this time with the restoration of the Boyd part of the project.

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by southbound_295

I used to go into Center City to see movies at the Boyd. It was so much better than seeing movies in the modern theaters.

Are you old enough to remember when it actually was the Boyd and NOT the Sameric? I am. I saw Ben Hur there in 1959!

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by newmarlig

There's also the Roxy at 20th and Sansom.

Which was renovated by the Philadelphia Film Society.

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by TARS

Going there tonight with my wife actually. However, some movies require a more "cinematic" experience like Interstellar or the upcoming Star Wars episode 7. Franklin's IMAX is extremely deceiving...very polished and inviting going in, but boy what a letdown when you sit in those 40-year-old foam seats. Speaking of which, do you think Franklin will ever update their IMAX? I love that it's an original dome screen...Interstellar was beautiful on it, but the seats are so bad I couldn't focus towards the end.

Who knows? Evidently the recent expansion plan and execution didn't include renovating the theater.

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by phillies2011

You seem to not understand my point of view at all. My optimist dollars ain't going anywhere near that movie theater. I have no interest at all in investing in a movie theater, I'd imagine most who don't want the boyd demolished feel the same way.

I also do not dispute the fact that restoring the theater is cost prohibitive... TODAY IN 2015. The thing is I'm not much of an apocalypse guy so I have to imagine there's gonna be a 2016 and a 2017 etc all the way on and on and on.

Wake up. Check out all the lost buildings on Philaphilia and you'll just see hundreds of amazing works of architecture that were demolished because at some time in the past restoring them was cost prohibitive. The problem is the people of the past never imagined the wealth and investment that is going into the Philadelphia of 2015. I don't fault them for that. I've yet to meet anyone who can predict the future. But people too often want to act as though they can. To say definitively, this will NEVER EVER work.

How many of those demolished architectural treasures could have been the home of multi-million dollar condos today? Would you rather look at a boarded up architectural treasure for 20 years or a parking lot for a century?

I get that not everything old can be saved. I get that not everything old is worth saving. I even get that some of the new things that come along will be BETTER than the things they replaced. All I'm saying is Philadelphia used to be filled with grand old movie theaters like the Boyd and one by one they've all gone the way of the dodo bird. It just so happens that the Boyd was basically the grandest of them all and thankfully we still have it today. What is the harm in holding on to it to see if sometime in the future restoring it will be economical. I mean honestly the street fronting facade on Chestnut is what 30 feet wide? Let's put some new plywood up, paint a mural and call it a day. What would it honestly harm? Are there not enough of other lots in center city that are ripe for development including a move theater? Because once you lose the Boyd, that's it, it's gone and nothing like it is ever coming back. And to lose something so beautiful for something so god damn ephemeral that it's calling frigging "ipic" is the very definition of short sighted thinking.

Besides if you mothball that theater and say "we are never knocking this down, we are never going to destroy this theater, if you want to use this space you're going to have to figure out a way to restore it and make it work otherwise you can take hike." Well then I think you'd be surprised how quickly someone finally figures "out a way to make it work.

Ipic's money can go take a walk, this BS can talk and talk all day.

Oh, I love to nitpit sometimes! lol

I would argue that Boyd was not the grandest of them all. The Mastbaum was. It was where the PECO building is today. And I actually liked the Fox Theater better than Boyd. The Fox was on the SW corner of 16th and Market.

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by Better Than You

Any theater built within city limits that were to show blockbuster, big budget films is going to attract "ghetto." I stick with the three Ritz and a theater in the near suburbs. It's a shame we have to live like this.

Clearly YOU do and want to. Meh.

Oh, btw, some of "those people" show up at the Rave at 40th and Walnut, where blockbusters are shown, and guess what, "those people" haven't trashed it during its time as the Bridge and now the Rave. It's been around for more than 10 years. And there's some renovation going to bring it more up-to-date.

[kyb01]

Originally Posted by Better Than You

I used to go there all the time, but for as uncomfortable as it is, it's not worth $12 a ticket to me.

It's been renovated. New seats. New sound system. New rest rooms.