What are the most and least desirable Broadway theatres?

jkcohen626 said: "Hey everyone!

I feel like I think about this a lot, but don't actually know so much about it. The people on this board tend to be pretty knowledgeable about stuff like this, so I thought I would ask here!

The only ones I really know are that the Ambassador, Marquis, and Broadway are considered particularly undesirable.

Any other very undesirable theatres? What about very desirable ones?"

Two of those theaters hold the longest running Broadway shows, what makes them undesirable?

jkcohen626 said: "blaxx said: "jkcohen626 said: "Hey everyone!

I feel like I think about this a lot, but don't actually know so much about it. The people on this board tend to be pretty knowledgeable about stuff like this, so I thought I would ask here!

The only ones I really know are that the Ambassador, Marquis, and Broadway are considered particularly undesirable.

Any other very undesirable theatres? What about very desirable ones?"

Two of those theaters hold the longest running Broadway shows, what makes them undesirable?"

Only the Ambassador has a long-running show. I think you're thinking of the Minskoff.

Both the Ambassador and Marquis (the current home of Beetlejuice) are known for particularly terrible backstage space.

The Ambassador was built diagonally (if that makes sense) to fit on a very small lot and it cut off a ton of the wing space theatres normally have. Despite having 1200 seats, it can't host any sort of show with big set pieces. Chicago is the perfect show for The Ambassador, but it will probably be hard to fill after it eventually closes.

My understanding of the Marquis was that it was essentially the result of the hotel developers being like "ugh, fine. You want a theatre, we'll give you a theatre" to the city. So it was built because they had to and, as such, there wasn't a ton of thought put into it.

Both the Marquis and the Broadway suffer from just being too big. Both theatres have only had a few hits this century and even those hits struggled to fill the theatre."

I was thinking of the Minskoff, yes, thanks for correcting me.

I am of the belief that the show makes or breaks the production, not the theater. We live in times where audiences look for the venue they really want to attend, it's not like any Broadway theater is inaccessible.

Then there is the Lyric, for example, that has never had a hit since it opened. I would call that venue unlucky, if not undesirable.

The Lyceum balcony and Studio 54 mezzanine are both death traps. For that reason alone, I would definitely think twice about booking a show in either theater.

The Sondheim for comfort; Booth, Circle in the Square and Schoenfeld because they are smaller and more intimate. The Beaumont for good sightlines and typically tremendous set/set-design. The sound in the Freidman mezzanine is not good. The Nederlander has poor sightlines and incredibly uncomfortable seats. I'd never go back to the Lyceum balcony and will always remember the half stall in the restroom. Not sure how I got out of that intact. I am also not a fan of the mezzanine at Studio 54.

ijest22 said: "The Lyric hasn’t had a hit? You don’t consider Harry Potter a hit?"

Unless I missed something, it hasn't made its investment back yet.

Melissa25 said: "The Nederlander has poor sightlines and incredibly uncomfortable seats. "



Yes! I just saw A CHRISTMAS CAROL there and it was torture. We had good location side orchestra seats and were in agony. Before the lights went down I checked out a center orchestra seat just to see if it was any better. It was but only slightly.

Similarly, unless you are in the very front orchestra at the Hudson, the pitch for the rest of the main floor is such that you are leaning forward in most orchestra seats. Really uncomfortable.

blaxx said: "I was thinking of the Minskoff, yes, thanks for correcting me.

I am of the belief that the show makes or breaks the production, not the theater. We live in times where audiences look for the venue they really want to attend, it's not like any Broadway theater is inaccessible.

Then there is the Lyric, for example, that has never had a hit since it opened. I would call that venue unlucky, if not undesirable."

I strongly disagree about venues not making or breaking a production. I don't think audiences are choosing whether or not to see a show based on the venue (for the most part), but the marriage of venue and show is crucial. There are some things that are the equivalent of semantics, but there are definitely shows that need certain things from their theatres.

Let's not forget about The Palace. I think that has always been a coveted theater to get. I'll be curious how the lifting and reconfiguring of the space and entrance might affect it. I worry that the curb appeal might be on par with The Marquis.

BroadwayNYC2 said: "I think the Palace is mostly iconic for its name and history. That place is a barn with an incredibly high balcony. It’s hard to fill. The renovation will remove some seats, fortunately."

Not to mention the last few rows of the orchestra are so far away- it feels like you are watching the show on a small tv screen with the top half covered up.

Updated On: 12/13/22 at 09:19 PM

ijest22 said: "The Lyric hasn’t had a hit? You don’t consider Harry Potter a hit?"

Also, didn’t the revival of 42nd St. run for over 3 years? Also, I terms of number of performances, do t forget that Spider-Man ran over 2 years.

Jarethan said: "ijest22 said: "The Lyric hasn’t had a hit? You don’t consider Harry Potter a hit?"

Also, didn’t the revival of 42nd St. run for over 3 years? Also, I terms of number of performances, do t forget that Spider-Man ran over 2 years."

Lol neither turned a profit. No show has turned a profit there, unless someone can prove that HP has.

blaxx said: "Jarethan said: "ijest22 said: "The Lyric hasn’t had a hit? You don’t consider Harry Potter a hit?"

Also, didn’t the revival of 42nd St. run for over 3 years? Also, I terms of number of performances, do t forget that Spider-Man ran over 2 years."

Lol neither turned a profit. No show has turned a profit there, unless someone can prove that HP has."

Though not on Broadway, I believe that the production of 42nd that did play at the lyric recouped on the road. Though, I could be misremembering that one.

When it first opened, Harry Potter drew mass appeal and was selling very well. People were enjoying the two part set up. However, over time, that seemed to dwindle, thus having it be one long play instead. Though, I do not believe that this was the result of the pandemic. If memory serves, the observation of lower ticket sales and the idea to fix that by making this a one night out affair came not too long before the shutdown. I assume that the creatives took advantage of the time away to work on setting up the way it is now.