Posted: 2/25/16 at 4:27pm
WOW. Does this mean that potentially one day their will be no theaters on 42nd street? Could this happen to other theaters or is this only because all are part of new 42nd street?
http://www.playbill.com/article/7-theatres-on-42nd-street-removed-from-consideration-as-landmarks
Updated On: 2/25/16 at 04:27 PM
Posted: 2/25/16 at 4:45pm
Landmark "protection" is sometimes not the ironclad lock everyone thinks it is . Back in 1974, the Loews Triboro was given landmark designation. It was a shock when than Queens Borough President Donald Manes refused to give it his rubber stamp of approval. The theater was than torn down.
Fast forward to 1986. The RKO Keith's theater in Flushing was again given designation. Manes again got involved. He made a political deal and the auditorium was stripped of its designation leaving only the lobby as a sop to preservationists. The owner not only gutted the auditorium but partially bulldozed the lobby as well. It sits there almost 40 years later rotting away.
Footnote to this Manes killed himself in a political corruption scandal. The theater had been listed on the National Register of Historic Places which many times is a meaningless designation.Bottom line is many times political expediency trumps historic preservation.
No idea how it will turn out . Since most are being used now they appear not to be in imminent danger.
Updated On: 2/25/16 at 04:45 PM
Posted: 2/25/16 at 4:46pm
Is the new victory a Broadway house?
Posted: 2/25/16 at 4:50pm
Call_me_jorge said: "Is the new victory a Broadway house?"
No, though it once was I believe.
It just seems silly to take them off the list. It's not like there's a max on NYC landmarks, cant they just chill on the list a while?
Posted: 2/25/16 at 5:33pm
Keep in mind that people who own theaters do not want them designated as landmark because then they cannot be re-structured to generate more income. Of course, the ridiculous ruling for The Palace completely goes against this idea and pretty much strengthens Mr. Roxy's observation that Landmark Status is meaningless.
It is likely that the theater owners themselves are behind getting removed from the list so the land can be sold to developers.
Also, people who own Broadway theaters do not want any of the old theaters coming back to life since they will add competition. Cirque has been trying to build a theater for years in the theater district and they have always been shot down by The Broadway League. It will be interesting to see what happens now that they will start performances in an actual Broadway theater.
We all saw what happened to the shows in Las Vegas once Cirque arrived.
Posted: 2/25/16 at 6:08pm
If anyone seriously believes all the landmarked theaters are forever protected, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.
The 2 theaters I mentioned were rare examples of atmospheric theaters designed by Thomas Lamb.He did not do many NY had these 2 and now we have none. None of the gorgeous picture palaces in Times Square survive. You have heard the saying " Money talks etc..."
It is very true.
Updated On: 2/26/16 at 06:08 PM
Posted: 2/25/16 at 6:29pm
This is very unsettling.
Posted: 2/26/16 at 9:49am
I would bet that most if not all of the theaters mentioned will have their designation removed. Those that want it removed will do a little " you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" with Landmarks. They will, down the road somewhere, alledgedly do a solid for Landmarks if Landmarks helps them now.
New York is always growing meaning they are tearing down, rebuilding, tearing down etc etc..Developers basically want to gut Hell's Kitchen so they can build a new Port Authority Bus Terminal. What happens with the old one and the businesses there? Probably torn down so they can build another office building or skyscraper or ugly hotel. If people are hurt, who cares. If they lose Hells Kitchen, so what to them.It is nothing personal only business. NY has lost so much over the years in every borough it is not even funny.
Posted: 2/26/16 at 10:38am
it is worth noting that:
most of the theatres mentioned have nothing of distinction either interior or exterior.
the only arguable exceptions to that are owned by non-profits.
most of the damage was done a while ago.
you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
Posted: 2/26/16 at 3:33pm
The New Victory should be a landmark, though. It's the oldest.
The Lyric? Who cares. Maybe they wanna change it around for the Cirque show?
I wonder what will come of the Times Sq. Theater? I'd love to see it kept as a performance space. Why not just turn it into a concert venue?
Posted: 2/26/16 at 3:59pm
New Victory has a ton of history attached to it. It was the home of Abbie's Irish Rise. It was also famous for Minsky's Burlesque.
Once there is money to be made tearing it down, all the history in the world will mean nothing Times Square has been modernized to the point of being unrecognizable. Any old and / or historic building is gone or has a target printed on its back.Sad to say, progress has a downside to it.
Updated On: 2/26/16 at 03:59 PM
Posted: 2/26/16 at 4:02pm
With the resurrection of The Hudson, maybe there is hope!
Posted: 2/26/16 at 4:05pm
If you lose 7 and get 1 in return, it seems like a win for the other side. I cannot be as hopeful as you.Sorry
Posted: 2/26/16 at 4:58pm
Although I suppose it's asking a lot here, tying our outrage and action to a few facts seems in order.
The action being addressed here is de-prioritizing the consideration of landmark status for the buildings in question. Why? Because, as the commission explained, they are not at risk at this time because other landmark protections are in place with respect to them. As an example, the New Victory is owned by a non-profit created by the city and the state with a charter that requires preservation. In the scheme of things, between considering it for landmarking and considering some privately owned building that currently has no protections in place, who here seriously thinks that priority should be given to addressing the New Victory? Sometimes, knee jerk reactions are not just fun but dangerous.
