#1
Posted: 1/7/15 at 4:10am
I wonder about the area around the New Amsterdam does everyone remember the area before disneyfacation ? and how long it took to get refurbished ?
#2
Posted: 1/7/15 at 5:31am
I do know that former mayor Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer took credit for cleaning up 42nd street. However, he was taking credit for someone else's work.
It was in fact former governor Mario Cuomo and former mayor Dinkins who used the state's power of eminent domain to get rid of the strip clubs etc on 42nd street itself. However, Rudy altered the zoning laws of where strip clubs, adult stores etc could be. That was contested in court by the NYCLU but Rudy won that one. By that time most of the adult stores and establishments moved towards eight avenue by 42nd street. However, when the city adjusted the rules on what constituted an adult establishment those stores simply adjusted how they displayed their stock. The new rule was that an adult shop had to devote 60 per cent of it's floor space to pornographic or adult material. Many stores got around this by altering how they were displaying their stock and featured some mainstream non adult movies in the front of the store to get around it. But, I think that it was the rezoning and the eminent domain that took place that started to shift the area into what it is now.
It was in fact former governor Mario Cuomo and former mayor Dinkins who used the state's power of eminent domain to get rid of the strip clubs etc on 42nd street itself. However, Rudy altered the zoning laws of where strip clubs, adult stores etc could be. That was contested in court by the NYCLU but Rudy won that one. By that time most of the adult stores and establishments moved towards eight avenue by 42nd street. However, when the city adjusted the rules on what constituted an adult establishment those stores simply adjusted how they displayed their stock. The new rule was that an adult shop had to devote 60 per cent of it's floor space to pornographic or adult material. Many stores got around this by altering how they were displaying their stock and featured some mainstream non adult movies in the front of the store to get around it. But, I think that it was the rezoning and the eminent domain that took place that started to shift the area into what it is now.
#3
Posted: 1/7/15 at 10:19am
Disney did put a lot of pressure on elected officials though. They weren't going to mount The Lion King on Broadway if it was going to be next door to a strip club or adult store. Of course the government was ultimately responsible for the changes, but it was the pressure of Disney and tourist money that got them to do anything.
#4
Posted: 1/7/15 at 6:40pm
I saw a history on Broadway dvd and the theatre was in a bad state
#5
Posted: 1/7/15 at 6:42pm
The Hotel Carter was than known as the Hotel Dixie
Nearby was a KFC. When you went into the theater to watch the movie, you either felt chicken bones underneath your feet upstairs or saw bones sailing thru the air to the orchestra. Many theaters (not sure in the New Amsterdam was one)had cats patrolling the theaters to keep mice and rats away.
They of course had sex shops & peep shows on both sides of the street every few feet.
Nearby was a KFC. When you went into the theater to watch the movie, you either felt chicken bones underneath your feet upstairs or saw bones sailing thru the air to the orchestra. Many theaters (not sure in the New Amsterdam was one)had cats patrolling the theaters to keep mice and rats away.
They of course had sex shops & peep shows on both sides of the street every few feet.
Poster Emeritus
Updated On: 1/7/15 at 06:42 PM
#6
Posted: 1/7/15 at 7:19pm
Spotlight On Broadway did a video series about every theatre on Broadway. Here is there video on the New Amsterdam, in which they talk of the refurbishment
Updated On: 1/7/15 at 07:19 PM
#7
Posted: 1/7/15 at 8:06pm
Does the New Amsterdam still offer a tour of the theatre? I went on it years ago before catching an evening preview performance of THE LION KING that morning. It was extremely interesting and informative covering both the theatre's history and renovation in detail. The only thing I missed was seeing the historic "Ziegfeld Roof" which I had always read about but unfortunately wasn't part of the tour. I believe there's a black and white film clip from 1959 floating around where they used the roof to rehearse GYPSY with Merman, Klugman and Church gathered around Styne at the piano. Not sure but it may have been one of the last times it was utilized before it fell into disrepair. Viewing it now, the clip has an almost ghostly quality to it.
#8
Posted: 1/7/15 at 10:55pm
I was down at the New Amsterdam, staring at this yellow-haired girl...
#9
Posted: 1/7/15 at 11:50pm
Bwaydide92,
The whole notion that Disney paid to clean up Times Square is an urban legend. The truth of the matter is that it wasn't disney who paid the city to make Times Square what it now is. The truth is that the city was looking for ways to clean up the area ever since Mayor Koch was in office. One of the things that happened was that they realized that the New Amsterdam was what many considered the former crown jewel of 42nd street. They gave Disney money to refurbish it and in addition to that they gave them a majority of the building to the left of the New Amsterdam (what's now a Sephora store.) This was done as a litmus test for other businesses. It was unclear if the plan with Disney would succeed. When it did, other companies took note and started to come into the area
The whole notion that Disney paid to clean up Times Square is an urban legend. The truth of the matter is that it wasn't disney who paid the city to make Times Square what it now is. The truth is that the city was looking for ways to clean up the area ever since Mayor Koch was in office. One of the things that happened was that they realized that the New Amsterdam was what many considered the former crown jewel of 42nd street. They gave Disney money to refurbish it and in addition to that they gave them a majority of the building to the left of the New Amsterdam (what's now a Sephora store.) This was done as a litmus test for other businesses. It was unclear if the plan with Disney would succeed. When it did, other companies took note and started to come into the area
#10
Posted: 1/8/15 at 1:23am
I never said Disney paid to clean up Times Square, but they did hold The Lion King and all of the tourists/money it would bring in, above officials heads. The Lion King was a huge success as a film, and Beauty and the Beast was still in the early years of a hugely successful run. The clout that Disney had and still has was definitely a factor. It didn't need to spend money to get things done. Disney speaks and people listen. The Lion King never would have been on Broadway if those strip clubs were still there. Disney likes to have control or influence over the areas around where it does business (Like the streets around Disneyland, they used to be terrible, now they're an extension of Disneyland almost.) New York cleans up Times Square, Disney bring Lion King, with that a ton of tourists (as can be seen every week grosses are released), tourists bring money. Boom, Economics.
#11
Posted: 1/8/15 at 1:39pm
Does anyone know if they have made any plans to fix up and re-open the rooftop space?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27199361@N08/ Phantom at the Royal Empire Theatre
#12
Posted: 1/8/15 at 1:56pm
Think it was deemed to far gone when Disney did the theater
Poster Emeritus
#13
Posted: 1/8/15 at 2:50pm
Rent "Vanya On 42nd Street". They filmed the entire movie there before the restoration and you can see what an amazing job they did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooVAo8FIpXw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooVAo8FIpXw
#14
Posted: 1/8/15 at 3:41pm
In the early 80s the late Anthony Newley wrote, directed and starred in a new musical called "Chaplin" about Guess Who. The plan was to open it on the west coast for an extended tryout and then maybe a few dates as they came cross country, but it was to open at the New Amsterdam. Until this time the theatre had shown movies since the Depression.
The Nederlanders had site control and began to renovate. The roof garden was removed.They then discovered that the theatre would need a lot more work than a coat of paint so they walked away, but not before 'renovations' had left a nice hole or two in the roof.
If you watch the film "Vanya on 42nd Street" (just about the best Chekhov I have seen on film) you will see the water damage done in the preceding ten years or so. The play is shot all over the theatre. It isn't a "filmed play" at all, and one can see that the damage to the theatre is extensive. It is omnipresent. So whoever paid for the renovation/restoration got their money's worth.
The New Amsterdam was a viable if run down building until about 1982. All it took was 10 years of neglect to almost lose it.
By the way, Chaplin never made it off the west coast. It closed out of town.
The Nederlanders had site control and began to renovate. The roof garden was removed.They then discovered that the theatre would need a lot more work than a coat of paint so they walked away, but not before 'renovations' had left a nice hole or two in the roof.
If you watch the film "Vanya on 42nd Street" (just about the best Chekhov I have seen on film) you will see the water damage done in the preceding ten years or so. The play is shot all over the theatre. It isn't a "filmed play" at all, and one can see that the damage to the theatre is extensive. It is omnipresent. So whoever paid for the renovation/restoration got their money's worth.
The New Amsterdam was a viable if run down building until about 1982. All it took was 10 years of neglect to almost lose it.
By the way, Chaplin never made it off the west coast. It closed out of town.
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true. And that would be unacceptable."
--Carrie Fisher
#15
Posted: 1/8/15 at 8:43pm
To the person who originally posted this the block of 42nd street was not good. The theaters that were still operating as movie houses we either showing porn or exploitation films. I would call walking that block as a 16 year old high school kid from the Pacific Northwest and handed flyers for the strip clubs and other assorted diversions. It's funny that I recently looked back in a scrapbook I had kept from the trip where I proudly display my "suggestive flyers" alongside my souvenir brochure from the ORIGINAL CHICAGO with Gwen and Chita! Somebody replying post is talking about a Broadway DVD of the history and refurbishment of the New Amsterdam, can somebody explain how I can get this? Any fellow Broadway-philes have memories of going to the first production at the reopened theater King David?
#16
Posted: 1/8/15 at 8:52pm
Once an old theater is exposed to the elements and no maintenance is done,the results are not pretty.
Poster Emeritus
#17
Posted: 1/9/15 at 12:03am
Bwaydide92
Your response is not only incorrect but illogical too. Yes, The Lion King has been a huge hit from the get go. But, the whole notion that The Lion King was going to be THE show that brought in tourists over any other is laughable. Yes, Lion King did and still continues to do so. But, it's not as if The Lion King was the one show to make the whole notion of seeing a Broadway show appealing to tourists. That was something that was around before The Lion King and will continue to be the case even after The Lion King closes.
The New Amsterdam was initially a Nederlander house that they let Disney lease for a pretty high number of years (don't know the exact number off hand.) The city helped foot the bill for the refurbishment of the theatre plus, on top of that gave Disney the space next door. A former strip club that Disney turned into a Disney store. That was the first time any sort of big commercial shop was seen in Times Square. Before that, it was all adult joints. It was the first non adult/big commercial thing that opened up in Times Square. No one knew how successful the store was going to be. That's why other major retail stores were observing and seeing how it was doing. When they realized that it was successful and that it was possible for major retail stores to open up shop successfully, they got in on a slice of the action as well.
Your response is not only incorrect but illogical too. Yes, The Lion King has been a huge hit from the get go. But, the whole notion that The Lion King was going to be THE show that brought in tourists over any other is laughable. Yes, Lion King did and still continues to do so. But, it's not as if The Lion King was the one show to make the whole notion of seeing a Broadway show appealing to tourists. That was something that was around before The Lion King and will continue to be the case even after The Lion King closes.
The New Amsterdam was initially a Nederlander house that they let Disney lease for a pretty high number of years (don't know the exact number off hand.) The city helped foot the bill for the refurbishment of the theatre plus, on top of that gave Disney the space next door. A former strip club that Disney turned into a Disney store. That was the first time any sort of big commercial shop was seen in Times Square. Before that, it was all adult joints. It was the first non adult/big commercial thing that opened up in Times Square. No one knew how successful the store was going to be. That's why other major retail stores were observing and seeing how it was doing. When they realized that it was successful and that it was possible for major retail stores to open up shop successfully, they got in on a slice of the action as well.
#18
Posted: 1/9/15 at 8:58pm
It wasn't just about The Lion King. It was about having Disney there. The Disney name brings people to it. That's why they have a 99 year lease for the New Amsterdam. Because NYC wants Disney as a presence in Times Square. Even if The Lion King wasn't as successful as it has been, they knew that they would still have Disney shows that would follow it.
The OP asked about the Disneyfication of 42nd. Disney's presence was a major factor, not the only one, but the primary one, in the 42nd street project.
The OP asked about the Disneyfication of 42nd. Disney's presence was a major factor, not the only one, but the primary one, in the 42nd street project.
#19
Posted: 1/10/15 at 10:58pm
The whole "NYC wanted Disney in Time Square thing" would make sense, specially the part about Disney and the 99 year lease thing if it was NYC that owned the New Amsterdam before Disney. The New Amsterdam was originally owned by the Nederlanders. That's the main reason that every single Disney show from the start, that didn't play The New Amsterdam have been in Nederlander houses. Furthermore, there wasn't nor did there have to be for reasons legal and otherwise any approval from the city.
#20
Posted: 1/11/15 at 12:08am
NY State took over control of the New Amsterdam in 1990 from the Nederlander Organization, following a court battle. Disney's signed a 99-year lease of the building in 1993.
State Acquires Landmark Theater To Salvage While It Still Can
State Acquires Landmark Theater To Salvage While It Still Can
Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end: then stop.
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
Tickets From $70
Tickets From $135
Tickets From $58
Tickets From $67
