Curran San Francisco Competing with SHN (sort of) — Page 2

I'm so happy that DEH is going to the Curran. There's no way it could have been good at the Orpheum or Golden Gate. The Curran is a perfect theatre for it. I predicted last year that either DEH and/or CFA would tour there.

the curran certainly does not appear to be running very smoothly thus far.
i signed up as a member last year and their system seems to have lost my data and ive received nothing about the new season other than my friends invite to the season announcement party.
i had to reinput my data and was also surprised not to be offered a discount to the subscription based on my prior support of their shows
the usher at curran on last night of run estimatef bright star avgd 70% capacity during the run which didnt seem bad (1000 people a night probably more than showed up nightly on bway) they did do some local tv spots for bright star

The Curran faces a daunting challenge of taking on the longtime dominant player for big touring musicals. SHN subscribers might be unhappy not to have Fun Home or Dear Evan Hansen in their season packages, but SHN still has all the advantages - even if its Market Street locations are less than ideal. But the Curran still needs to fill 1,667 seats.

SHN discounts its shows too. During the last two years, I've only paid full price for the Hamilton tour stop. But SHN has enough of a subscriber base that my seats aren't as close.

broadwaysfguy, I suspect the usher's estimates for Bright Star were a little high, if my experience on a Saturday night is any indication.

The problem for the Curran is that I doubt their business model makes sense. Maybe they can pull it off this year with Dear Evan Hansen, but economic logic works against them. Let's say I wanted to see all four shows, including Taylor Mac. I would pay $45 for the first three shows on TodayTix. That's $135, including fees. And then if I want to see Dear Evan Hansen, I could fork over $500 and still pay less than a season subscription.

And it's a one-month wonder. SHN comes back in January 2019 with Hamilton's open-ended run, which they can sell with next year's season packages.

It's tough fighting a juggernaut, especially when the Curran isn't really offering many shows, and only one that will fill the place.

Updated On: 1/20/18 at 02:59 AM

I agree with you that Hays isn't trying to compete directly with SHN. The latter focuses on musicals on national tours following Broadway runs, with the occasional out-of-town tryout and commercially successful play.

Hays doesn't have to worry about money. This seems like a passion project for her. She's working around the edges, snagging one big musical a year that SHN would have wanted and filling in the rest of the season with new musicals, other shows, and a few special events.

That does fill a niche in the SF Bay Area. ACT focuses mostly on smaller-scale plays, as does the Berkeley Rep.

SHN subscribers would groan if presented with a season featuring too many new productions. That's not what they're usually selling.

RockyRoad knows more than I do about internal Curran gossip, and I'm sure they are having growing pains. But if your new season is anchored by Dear Evan Hansen, the most commercially successful new musical since Hamilton, that will paper over a lot of problems.

Updated On: 1/20/18 at 12:53 PM

if the curran lost money every year for the next 10 years and the curran building gained reasonable appreciation in asset value over those years and used the writeoffs to shelter other income, it would likely be a wash or net worth gain and not affect where the family took their next vacation. prime real estate is actually a very effective vehicle to support and indirectly underwrite the arts

there were lots of touring shows available in 2018 that neither curran or shn booked, that were likely available to curran if they wanted them and their mission was to compete head to head against shn.

both carole and their son wally have stated publicly their mission is to sponsor new works.
caroles done this for decades for plays that dont recoup but have won her industry respect admiration and tony awards, and they are doing what they said they would do this season with three new works

if profit maximization were their primary goal, they would have recruited an experienced leadership team to run everything.

They may ultimately need to do this if the levels of service and marketing dont improve dramatically.

Both the Orpheum and Golden Gate are on Market St in the Civic Center/mid-Market area. It can be a bit daunting in the evening (although well-lit and relatively safe on Market St, itself). The Curran is a few blocks north, off of Union Square. In both cases, the theatres are bordering much tougher Tenderloin streets, but the Geary St location of the Curran is better. Also, there are many restaurants in the Union Square/Nob Hill area near the Curran. Although mid-Market is improving with Twitter and Uber HQ, and ACT's second stage, the Strand, it's still sorta' sketchy and restaurants have tried to follow the techie money, but have had trouble staying in business.

The areas aren't far from each other, but, as is often the case in dense cities, a few blocks can make all the difference.

Updated On: 1/21/18 at 05:37 PM

Phantom of London said: "When I was in San Fran recently I noticed a lot of rough sleepers sadly around the Orpheum Theatre, by the Iovely water fountain.

I don’t know how true this is but a friend of mine told me that they have recently moved a lot of homeless people to San Fran?"

It's been like that for years. And who is this "they"?

---

homelessness in san francisco is still an unsolved major issue in an otherwise magical city. google sf homeless census 2017 to get some very interesting details and facts on the population which totals about 7500 per the census. i think the city and other related agencies have about 5000 beds/shelters but you cant force people to use them under current laws and around 4000 beds get used a night, resulting in 3k plus sleeping on the streets. having volunteered for homeless services and keeping current with the efforts, the biggest challenge is mostly a combo of mental illness and addictions (often self medicating some underlying illness) and that the city will not often institutionalize people for treatment wo their consent (unless they provide a clear danger to others) since most mentally ill and addicts dont want to get help they need at any given moment in time, it becomes a revolving door of brief bandaids when patients really need long term detox and mental healthcare in most cases. its profoundly sad and frustrating to see no visable improvement in the 22 years ive lived here. my humble opinion is chronic homeless people need care at the state level in medium to long term care facilities designed to address the physical and mental addictions and mental disorders. this would also require legal changes to enable more involuntary commitment for those who are ill. this involves fundamental issues of civil rights and liberties as well as balancing the rights and freedoms of the rest of the citizens.
last week i took my wife to ghirardelli square for a nice sunday brunch. as we approached a major intersection a homeless man dropped his pants and defecated about six feet from our car. needless to say it was an effective appetite suppressant. i would happily pay more in taxes for that man to get the institutional help he needs. our politicians do not have the political courage to address the root causes and get these people off the street and into longterm treatment.
so for the forseeable future, i wont park and walk anywhere around the golden gate theatre or orpheum and use lyft or cabs. curran is much cleaner and safer as cops keep the homeless off union square as much as possible for the tourists benefit

BroadwaySFGuy nailed it, the issue is not homelessness per se, but rather the mental and chemical issues the folks on the street have to deal with. Putting these folks in apartments or single-room occupancy hotels would not solve the problem. Get them treatment and then maybe they can find gainful employment, permanent housing, etc.

Jorge, the two big theaters are in the Tenderloin, which as you might assume from the name, is the seedier, lower-income part of San Francisco. I've lived here 30 years, and in the past I had no problem walking through the 'Loin at night after a show. There were unique characters, but I didn't use to see the level of violence, craziness, and bad behavior I see today. When Rob McClure toured through with Something Rotten, he wrote a lengthy expose on his Facebook page. One thing that was noted was how the big touring housing in many cities are generally in less safe parts of town. Like many cities, at one time -- when the theaters were built and there were lots more of them -- the Tenderloin was a nicer place.

The area is changing, as tech companies are moving in and the Tenderloin is gentrifying. I belive in 5-10 years it will look and feel very different, and if I had the money I'd be buying property there, knowing it will soon be a happenin' hood. (Think Hell's Kitchen in the 1970s compared to today.)

Thank you for the above thoughtful responses.

I find it very sad when I was in San Francisco last month and you see some guy asleep on the side-walk outside the Orpheum, no blanket, no cardboard just him in his clothes on the bare side walk., here in London we have the same problems with rough sleepers which equally saddens me, I would be happy to pay more taxes to help these poor souls.

A very close relation to me was homeless, this resulted with him dying on the streets. My relation was clean, he didn't really drink and didn't do drugs, but was a heavy smoker and used to go up to the sports centre for a shower, however he was tormented by an addled brain that played psychotic tricks on him, that prevented him from living in his apartment and would opt for a tent instead on the Kent coast. My mum and I behind the scenes tried our best to get him sectioned for schizophrenia, but were hit with a barrage of human rights and data protection issues from social workers, even though we were backed up by a psychiatrist, it is a minefield. So from a first hand experience I appreciate people need to be rehabilitated from addictions and/or mental illnesses, people deserve another chance and maybe another one after that, health is the first step to get people fully functioning again.

Call_me_jorge said: "I think I understand why there’s such a big homelessness problem in SF, but why is it such a big issue around the major theatres? You’d expect it would get a ton of foot traffic from all the shows that play there, so businesses would want to open near them so theatre goers have a place to eat, shop, drink. Wouldn’t that kind of curve the homeless population somewhere else? Or are there already restaurants there? I’ve never been to this area, so my imagination is running through crazy visualizations! Like is it still nice neighborhood just with a ton of homeless people? Sorry for that rant."

The Orpheum is across the street (on one side of the building) from the main public library, which has rather large bathrooms that many homeless use to freshen up. It's also not far from the Westfield Shopping Centre, which is a warm place to hang out if you have nowhere else to go. The Curran's neighborhood is only about a block or two away from a residential area, and many of those residences are single-room occupancy buildings. (More local SF people, please feel free to correct/elaborate!)

Plenty of businesses are open to tourists, from across the bay and beyond, but that doesn't mean there aren't homeless people sleeping in those same doorways once the staff goes home for the night.

---

The most hilarious thing when I used to attend SHN/SF press events was how they really oversold their role in things, and you'd have 10-minute speeches about "When I saw (insert show) on Broadway, I knew this was a show that people in San Francisco needed to see..." and on and on. And you'd be thinking, "Really? The hot show that won the Tonys? You sorted out people would want to see that here?" I guess it goes with the territory, but that speech was recycled more than once.