A paucity of theaters for new musical productions

[Seperite]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 12:02pm

The limited number of Broadway theaters suitable for musicals, coupled with the large percentage that are occupied by long-running juggernauts, may well prevent otherwise-ready new works from being seen.

Consider:

Ambassador (Chicago), Barrymore (Curious Incident), Beaumont (King and I), Broadway (Fiddler), Circle in the Square (Fun Home), Gershwin (Wicked), Hirschfeld (Kinky Boots), Imperial (Les Miz), Jacobs (Color Purple), Lunt-Fontanne (Neverland), Majestic (Phantom), Marquis (On Your Feet), Minskoff (Lion King), New Amsterdam (Aladdin), O'Neill (Book of Mormon), Palace (American in Paris), Rodgers (Hamilton), St. James (Something Rotten), Shubert (Matilda), Sondheim (Beautiful), Wilson (Jersey Boys), Winter Garden (School of Rock)

That's 22 theaters -- 55% of the houses on Broadway -- that are currently occupied by productions that either have been running, or look likely to continue to run, for years on end. That's a big number -- imagine if more than half the screens at your local multiplex were still showing Back to the Future, Titanic, and Gone With the Wind.

Of the remaining 18 theaters, four are not really suitable, or are very seldom used, for musicals (Cort, Friedman...Hayes and Studio 54 only work if the orchestra is on stage.)

That leaves only 14 houses potentially available for new musical productions. Many of those have tenants or are soon to be occupied with new shows, some of which may well end up being long-running juggernauts that close off that house for years to come as well.

The situation is quite different on the West End, which has 50% more theaters than does Broadway. More theaters = more opportunities for new productions to find space, build audiences, and advance the art form.

I wonder if Broadway has ever had this kind of shortage-of-space problem in the past. We are in the golden age for Broadway revenue right now -- nearly 1.4 billion in tickets sales this past season, the highest ever, and nearly double what it was just a decade ago. And the reason is not just increased prices for tickets -- the number of tickets sold eclipses anything Broadway has seen in decades, if not all-time. The dark days of Broadway limping along as a struggling industry are over. All of that means that shows have a greater chance of staying open longer than they ever have before. But the number of theaters is not increasing, so as more long-running hits occupy more theaters, the opportunity for new works to find a home and make their mark decreases.

Interesting and unfortunate byproduct of the success that Broadway is enjoying.

 

Updated On: 12/26/15 at 12:02 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 12:27pm

This topic is resurrected regularly, always to the same effect. Suffice it to say that unless and until there are worthy shows not finding theatres, there is no problem. And there is no evidence such a situation has or is projected to exist. The nice thing about Broadway musicals is that enough of them fail, so inventory becomes available. Don't lose sleep over this one. 

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 12:33pm

There aren't that many juggernauts with super long runs. Some of those shows listed above have already posted closing notices and a few more are limited runs produced by subscription based companies, others are relatively new productions that are likely experiencing normal healthy runs. It really isn't a shortage per se,  it is just a sign that the industry is healthy for the moment.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 1:31pm

The limited number of Broadway theaters suitable for musicals, coupled with the large percentage that are occupied by long-running juggernauts, may well prevent otherwise-ready new works from being seen.

 

Shows close and shows open.  New shows don't get prevented from being produced for lack of space.  They wait for an available space.  Same as always.  Meanwhile, it's already been announced that Ambassador Theatre Group will be refurbishing the Hudson theatre to reopen as a new Broadway house.

[Seperite]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 1:32pm

Which of the above have posted closing notices, other than Les Mis for nearly a year from now? (plenty of time for it to be extended a million times, as it has in the past)

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 2:00pm

Broadway houses that have hosted musicals that have currently posted closing notices:

 

Walter Kerr (A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder) - Booked through 7/17/16 for The Crucible

Lyceum (A View From the Bridge) - Booked through 7/24/16 for Fully Committed

Schoenfeld (China Doll) - Booked for American Psycho

Hayes (Dames at Sea) - Booked for The Humans

Booth (Hand to God) - Booked for Hughie

Imperial (Les Miserables) - Nothing yet announced

Lyric (Lord of the Dance) - Booked for Paramour

Broadhurst (Misery) - Booked for Tuck Everlasting

American Airlines (Noises Off) - Booked for The Cherry Orchard (repertory house)

Brooks Atkinson (Spring Awakening) - Booked for Waitress

Cort (Sylvia) - Booked for Bright Star

Studio 54 (Therese Raquin) - Booked for She Loves Me and Holiday Inn (repertory house)

Golden (The Gin Game) - Booked through 6/19/16 for Eclipsed

Neil Simon (The Illusionists) - Nothing yet announced

 

Shows are closing.  New shows are opening.  Same as always.

 

 

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 2:00pm

When would the industry at its healthiest? When every single theatre has a show that runs for 2 years? 

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 3:50pm

I would suggest that health is not measured by theatre inventory but by the quality of what's coming in. Currently, there are multiple shows coming in each season that are not worthy of a Broadway house and that would not get one if there was better raw material. This reflects a softness of demand. And we also have houses that are being used for things that are not theatre at all: that is not a good sign either. Our problem is not a dearth of theatres but a dearth of quality product, although happily it's better now than it was previously. Finally, in addition to the shows mentioned in this thread there are shows that are starting to wind down and have realistic horizon lines. 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 4:06pm

Quality is highly subjective and it's rare that more than a handful of people at any given time are satisfied with any given Broadway season at all.  Broadway is a commercial capitalist enterprise.  Any show that raises the money to open on Broadway is "worthy of Broadway".  Whether or not it makes a profit is determined by audiences.  And Broadway houses being used for productions other than a play or musical is Broadway History 101.  It's not indicative of anything other than a tradition that spans over a century.  I think a dearth of quality product is only a problem to the dissatisfied individual and no one else.

[evic]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 4:20pm

My predictions: Jersey Boys will probably close this June if not sooner.   I don't think that Neverland and Rotten will last past June and also may close earlier.  School Of Rock will not be a mega hit..nor will Fiddler.nor will On Your Feet  I give them all a 1 year run.  Tuck will be dead on arrival. American in Paris will be lucky if it runs 1 1/2 years.  Kinky probably has 1 more year of life as does Matilda. King And I will be gone by June.. As long as there are tourists, Chicago and Phantom will keep running. Lion King will never close. Alladin, Mormon and Wicked aren't going anywhere for 5 or more years  Hamilton and Shuffle will be the 2 megas of this season and sweep the Tonys leaving all other musicals in the dust..  I also predict that Cats and Miss Saigon will be disappointments for Cameron  and like many revivals, will only last one season.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 5:03pm

mister matt--

I'm afraid you misapprehended what I was saying as well as the dynamic at play. I'm not talking about subjective quality but about the quality of the tenant to the landlord. When there are shows lined up waiting for theatres, shows like (to pick an obvious example) Amazing Grace don't get the time of day from a landlord no matter how ready willing and able they are to load in. That's because every booking is an investment to the landlord and has to be evaluated as such. When a show lacks a provenance on any level, having money to burn does not get you on Broadway unless there is a soft market. For the landlord, it is not a roll the dice and pray type of thing.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 5:04pm

I'm not sure how much longer Chicago can hang in there hovering around 50% gross potential and lower.  By comparison, Jersey Boys has actually been outperforming Chicago by a slim margin (though it's impossible to interpret what this really means without knowing their respective profit margins).  

 

Nicholaw has a pretty strong track record, though Tuck Everlasting seems a bit outside his wheelhouse.  I really like the music I've heard and I hope it at least garners good reviews and positive word of mouth. I'm afraid it's just opening to soon following on the heels of Finding Neverland and will struggle to find an audience.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 5:16pm

getting back to the OP, I think it is fair to say that the wheel will come off of SOME show in each of these categories (struggling long runners, class of '13, this year's crop) in the foreseeable future, and that opens up a boatload of houses.

[Hamilton22]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 5:30pm

Hogan's Hero, your incorrect comments seem to be making a farce out of this thread. How uncouth of you. Please take your wildly wrongful statements to the gully hole where they belong. Thank You, sir. 

[Mike66]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 5:48pm

Hamilton22 said: "Hogan's Hero, your incorrect comments seem to be making a farce out of this thread. How uncouth of you. Please take your wildly wrongful statements to the gully hole where they belong. Thank You, sir. 

 

Actually, I think his comments were spot-on.  Broadway's dynamic is constantly changing --  not always for better, although it's pretty good right now.  Although we, the audience, are always looking for "quality" (whatever the heck that means), the landlords and producers are looking to make a buck -- which is how it should be.

 

Even this last year, a landlord turned out a show which would have stayed longer.  But the lease includes the right of the landlord to close the lights if sales don't amount to what was expected (in the contract).  Of course, without a "good prospect" waiting to load in, a landlord (like any wise hotelier) may prefer any "head in the bed" to an empty hall.

 

But it's all about the dollars.  And there's nothing wrong with that -- as long as we, the audience don't give them our dollars unless they bring something we enjoy.

 

Happy New Year everybody,

m

"

 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 5:49pm

If by quality product you mean profitable shows, it's still a roll of the dice for any landlord when the contracts are signed.  They may have higher odds than initial investors due to a successful tryout, but any available house could be seen as lacking quality product.  Amazing Grace would have found a theatre in virtually any season simply because similar shows (and worse) found their way to a landlord every season.  A look at the Nederlander portfolio could easily indicate that some landlords may have enough bankable hits to toss an altruistic bone to an early revival of Spring Awakening or roll the dice on Disaster! The Musical.

[broadwaysfguy]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 6:04pm

Hamilton22 said: "Hogan's Hero, your incorrect comments seem to be making a farce out of this thread. How uncouth of you. Please take your wildly wrongful statements to the gully hole where they belong. Thank You, sir.

It's show business

Hogan, you consistently demonstrate an expert level of insight into how musical theatre runs as a business, and i learn something from nearly every post you make (thank you), which is a LOT more than i can say for some of the posers (i meant posters,,,,) on this board....

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 6:11pm

Landlords are interested in high revenue not profitable shows. Yes, there is always risk, but there is intelligent risk and unintelligent risk. These shows without provenance may get a berth at an off-peak time that no one else wants because they can be booted for better tenants but if the demand were robust, they would not. Landlords make mistakes too, but no one had a notion these dubious shows were going to do anything but pay some rent until something better came along. And if these meh shows do find homes, doesn't that disprove the thesis of the OP? There is no question you are right that some shows get in because the landlord wants it to but these things are also controlled. Look at your examples: Disaster and Spring Awakening were booked as limited runs, not because of the producer but because of the landlord. 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 6:33pm

The same landlords that gambled on After Midnight and It Shoulda Been You.  Landlords are generally interested in potentially high profitable shows because they provide high revenue and stability.  Sure, limited engagements can represent a need for a placeholder by landlords, but again, they are chosen in addition to open-ended quickly closing flops.  Hits, specialty attractions, limited engagements and flops occur every season.  My point being that regardless "quality product" for landlords or an abundance of long-running hits, Broadway maintains business as usual and every season new productions find a home.  Nothing out of the ordinary is happening at all.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 7:03pm

well I completely agree with your last two sentences which is the same point I made in my first post. Subsequently, someone asked about "health"  and framed it in terms of length of runs. I pivoted to " quality"  and that's where I think where we have a misunderstanding. (I'd not call it a disagreement.) While recognizing that we will likely always have (as you say) "Hits, specialty attractions, limited engagements and flops," my answer to the " health"  query is, in essence simply that Broadway would be healthier with more Hamiltons and less Amazing Graces. That also does not alter the fact that there is not and likely will not be an inventory crisis of the species suggested by the OP. (I assume you don't disagree, since you said the same thing.) And now I am off to see one of those unhealthy flops!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 7:11pm

In the end, we're in complete agreement.  

 

So...anyone have a single ticket to Hamilton they want to sell at face value?

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/26/15 at 7:46pm

Doesn't William Goldman discuss this very subject in THE SEASON? 1967-68 was a rather dismal season for new productions, but Broadway as a whole was doing fine with long runs including FIDDLER, DOLLY, MAME, MAN OF LA MANCHA--and HAIR just beginning it's long run.

 

I mention this not to accuse the OP of being redundant (the late 60s were a half-century ago), but to support the assertion above that this isn't the first time Broadway has seen a glut of long-running hits. And also to point out that these things are cyclical to some extent. Just as reports of Broadway's demise have always proved premature, claiming that the days of desirable houses sitting dark are over is probably just as premature. Just wait until the next financial crash brings another crack down on Wall Street expense accounts.

[Seperite]

Posted: 12/27/15 at 8:20pm

Perhaps there is some analogy to be drawn to past eras...

The difference, however, is that Broadway has never pulled in as much revenue, and never sold as many tickets, as it does today -- and there's no sign of that trend abating. More ticket sales means that more extant shows can run longer. But since increased ticket sales doesn't translate into an increased number of theaters, it means that if the current trends continue, eventually there will not be enough theaters to house new productions. Sure, a significant number of shows close, thereby opening up spaces, but high ticket sales and robust revenue across the industry mean that more shows stay open longer AND more new material gets produced.  (The new tax breaks should increase the production of new material, too.) Eventually, the new material will not be able to find a home. By my count, there are still around 14 theaters that can be rented either now or in the near future for a new musical, but as long as things continue the way they are, that number is bound to dwindle.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/27/15 at 8:49pm

@seperite "More ticket sales means that more extant shows can run longer."

There is no evidence to support this notion. In fact, with equal force I could assert that lower costs (as in historical periods) mean that more extant shows could run longer. Your fear of an impending crisis is nonsense. Find another cause.