How much longer can "Chicago" last?

Chicago's weekly break-even is very low, but the theatre owner can earn a lot more money each week with a new tenant.

It's not as if Fan and Barry Weissler are going to produce many more shows and have to be kept happy.

Wish they’d renovate the theater but it’s def a mainstay at this point.

The show is cheap to run and any new show would be a risk. The word that comes to mind as to why this show is still running with no signs of stopping is Tourists. Now, of course all of Broadway relies on toursism for ticket sales. But, for Chicago it’s a little different. Tourists, both international and domestic, tend to equate longevity with quality. In other words, it must be a good show if it has been running for as long as it has.

Look, at this point, the show has become a tourist trap show. A show those visiting NYC must experience, the same way they must take in the view of the city from atop the Empire State Building.

I think that this production is rather long in the tooth with zero thought of upkeep being given. Fran and Barry are, I’m sure, happy to collect the money that this show brings them and leave it at that. Do keep in mind that this production is not one that aged well. The Weissler’s don’t seem to care because people can and will keep coming, thereby allowing them to collect money. Between working there and seeing actors phoning it in or ensemble members who are a tad long in the tooth it shows.

They’ll close it when it runs one performance longer than “Phantom”.

I don't know why people have such a hard time processing information that's right before them. As someone wrote above, it's a very undesirable theatre for many reasons. As I said, look at the track record. When the show leaves (and no one is going to kick it out), it is going to take a LOT to bring it into rentable condition. It needs a major renovation and that is not going to cure the unfixable structural defects. Some of you may not recall that this is the 4th stop for this show (including Encores). Most shows at the Ambassador flop. It's not a viable musical house. Even at the paltry grosses it is doing better than what would likely follow. Give it a rest.

Every time someone asks this question it gains an extra hundred performances.

SouthernCakes said: "What makes it so undesirable? It’s the only Broadway theater I’ve never been in."

It’s not about the auditorium of the theater, but the backstage space. There just isn’t enough room for a big musical. Although, the auditorium itself isn’t great either. It’s a weird shape and the side sight-lines are horrible.

I wouldn’t say the theatre’s desirability has much to do with the show closing or not (I believe it does not have a stop clause?) — it’s more a matter of Barry & Fran and Alecia Parker (the person who truly keeps this thing running) feeling this show still has juice and is worthwhile to keep it going.

They’ve just passed two milestones: 25 years and 10K perfs. I expect it has lost money since Anderson left (there’s no way this costs under $550K p/w to run, maybe closer to 6 by now), but as we know it has enough in the till to sustain a certain amount of losing weeks and they evidently don’t mind bleeding money here and there.

AND ALSO REMEMBER: if and when it closes at the Ambassador, it can always return. Be it on Broadway of Off (perhaps a little too big for NWS or Stage 42).

Updated On: 8/15/22 at 11:31 AM

Wick3 said: "More than half of the Shubert org Broadway theaters are empty right now. If and only if all of their 17 Broadway theaters are fully booked and there's another production trying to get in, then I can see the Shuberts try to kick Chicago out of the Ambassador and perhaps have them move to off-Bway.

Every single Shubert building has a show booked for the fall, along with at least one back-up in case anything falls thru. Many of these shows have not been announced.

JSquared2 said: "Wick3 said: "More than half of the Shubert org Broadway theaters are empty right now. If and only if all of their 17 Broadway theaters are fully booked and there's another production trying to get in, then I can see the Shuberts try to kick Chicago out of the Ambassador and perhaps have them move to off-Bway.

Every single Shubert building has a show booked for the fall, along with at least one back-up in case anything falls thru. Many of these shows have not been announced.



Precisely. If the Ambassador became available I bet it would be booked in a heartbeat despite its shortcomings. In my opinion, those three east-of-Broadway triple decker Shubert houses are a tougher sell.



"

Is the backstage area actually that bad at the ambassador? Have never been back there but there’s many a theatre with poor backstage space and they “make it work.”

This thread seems to be going around in circles.

Why is Chicago still open?

Because it has low costs and is still relatively popular and the theater is undesirable.

The theater owners would make so much more money with a new super popular show.

That might not necessarily happen.

So why is Chicago still open?

Because it has low costs..........and on and on and on.