New Broadway Theater to Open Under U.K. Giant Ambassador Theater Group — Page 2

No way to know for sure, but Ambassador Theatre Group seems to generally not rename their theatres.  I think only one of their theatres in London was renamed during their ownership, when the Comedy Theatre became the Harold Pinter.   As for what is now the Lyric, they actually gave it that name, for one of the two theatres that originally stood on that site (and it's the only decent name that theatre has had).  The present Lyric Theatre uses the 42nd and 43rd Street facades of what was the original Lyric.  

Updated On: 12/16/15 at 08:39 PM

I wonder what effect this may have on the rumored plans to build a new theatre in the lot next to the Imperial Theater?

I'm surprised there is still such a huge lot in such a prime location. 

As for new theaters, I think we need more smaller range houses. I think everything is better with a more intimate space. 

HogansHero said: "RippedMan said: "I think everything is better with a more intimate space. "

You may think so but producers looking to make bank don't. And they, not the ticket buyer, are the market.

"

I've never understood this mindset. I am not arguing with your point Hogan, just sharing my opinion. You would think that by now, producers would make an effort in putting their hopeful hits into more intimate spaces (i.e. Book of Mormon) where their show will not struggle to fill the house and set an appeal toward the show and if it becomes a hit, sell out faster creating more of a demand to purchase tickets further and further in advance until you become the next runaway hit. It is more difficult to do that in a larger house because unless you have something like, say, The Lion King, you really have to build up your show to fill those seats. I guess my overall point is that the Mormon model has worked so well that I'm not sure why more producers haven't followed suit and gone that route when choosing a venue. (For further example, maybe last years Side Show would have done better in a venue such as The Booth rather than the massive space that is the St. James). Makes me think some more intimate theaters may be a great addition to Broadway. Again, just some thoughts. 

Updated On: 12/17/15 at 01:41 AM

There going to have to totally rip out all the seating the mezzanine level and redo it, sat up there for a screening a few months ago, if you think Studio 54 seats are tight, these are WAY worse. 

HogansHero said: "@Greased, 

I'm not arguing with your point either, as a matter of preference, but many producers have a different mentality than you or me. They go into a show thinking they have a winner on their hands and they want a house that will let them reap a big harvest. It's hard to make the numbers work in a small house on paper and, of course, it is hard to sell a modest show on Broadway in any size house in reality. That's why I said that the market for smaller theatres is soft-they are usually a consolation prize.

"

All great points! It's definitely an interesting topic of discussion and I definitely would love to see some more intimate spaces but understandably so they are, as you said, like a consolation prize. 

"given the demand for theatres over the past couple of years (including theatres smaller than the Hudson)"

could you put some flesh on that bone? What shows are you aware of that did not come in solely because there was no small theatre available for them?

Looking at that pic on the Timeout article points out that the way the real estate is divided is not ideal as the top tier is quite large in relation to the mezz and the orch. That's a lot of seats that will have to be priced down. 

What about the Lyceum?

I was basing my comment solely on when the houses opened. It doesn't really matter, they were all built and inaugurated pretty much the same time. Imagine what a time that was, so many beautiful new theaters being put up at the same time.

@hoganshero said: could you put some flesh on that bone? What shows are you aware of that did not come in solely because there was no small theatre available for them?

One example that comes to mind is GIGANTIC (fat camp)... eventually the Dodgers who were originally producing for Broadway it let the rights go... luckily it resurfaced at Vineyard this year. 

Given the frontage, I think ATG should go for signage similar to the one they used when they restored the frontage of the Fortune Theatre. It's not fancy but it serves its purpose well.

"could you put some flesh on that bone? What shows are you aware of that did not come in solely because there was no small theatre available for them?"

The reasoning was based only on the occupancy of small theatres over the past few years. Looking at the eight theatres that are around the same size or smaller than the Hudson on Broadway, practically all seem to have bookings every season (with some individual variation).

Updated On: 12/18/15 at 08:46 PM

qolbinau said: "The reasoning was based only on the occupancy of small theatres over the past few years. Looking at the eight theatres that are around the same size or smaller than the Hudson on Broadway, practically all seem to have bookings every season (with some individual variation)."

absent an external reason, no broadway theatre has gone unfilled for any season in recent years. But some theatres are in demand and others are consolation prizes. As with any asset, But in any event, that doesn't address the question I asked for an example of a worthy show that didn't come in. (We now all about unworthy shows that got in because of the softness of demand for the theatre in question.