CHICAGO | General Developments

[k1052]

Originally Posted by BWChicago

It's not really a very viable model anymore outside of the already-existing ones. Too few screens, too small capacity, and without stadium seating, they can't effectively compete - and they're almost always cheaply done, with small screens, weirdly shaped rooms, sound bleed. Then you get into code issues and it makes it even trickier at this point than it was in the 70s and 80s when most of these splits occurred. It would almost be easier to build out a vacant big-box into a multiplex. Assuming they're using essentially the same layout as the Hyde Park had previously rather than gutting it and re-dividing, I'm betting they'll squeeze one more screen out of the stage.

The Harper was converted much like the Evanston was, by extending the balcony floor towards stage, so it has seats in the 350 range. (That also made other reuse possibilities more difficult). So each auditorium is roughly twice the size of the screens at the 400. They've done a good job bringing the 400 back from a really bad condition, so maybe they can pull it off here - and the 400 obviously draws a lot from Loyola. The LaGrange was spruced up nicely too. It will be difficult. I'm extremely surprised that it's come back to a proposal like this after all these plans. But no, I don't think it would be a viable model elsewhere in the city.

It's still easier usually to do a new build than to go into existing space. Some chains still do it but you end up with weird layouts and non-optimal theater shapes.

A shitload of corners were cut by everyone who did splits into the twins, tris, and quads. None of it would stand a chance in hell of passing code for structural, electrical, ect. It might be better done today if whoever is holding the purse strings is willing to spend on a quality conversion. Still it is definitely true that a small operator in this city is working at a major disadvantage to the circuits that have 10+ screens in a complex. The only exception would be Landmark but that is another animal.

[ardecila]

Well, the New 400 seems to be on the more-respectable end of theater operators.

I think with the Harper Court development going forward, the New 400 will stand a good chance of success, especially if they can create attractive, well-designed spaces inside.

[Chicagoguy]

Originally Posted by k1052

It's still easier usually to do a new build than to go into existing space. Some chains still do it but you end up with weird layouts and non-optimal theater shapes.

A shitload of corners were cut by everyone who did splits into the twins, tris, and quads. None of it would stand a chance in hell of passing code for structural, electrical, ect. It might be better done today if whoever is holding the purse strings is willing to spend on a quality conversion. Still it is definitely true that a small operator in this city is working at a major disadvantage to the circuits that have 10+ screens in a complex. The only exception would be Landmark but that is another animal.

What are the plans for the Uptown Theater? Wasn't it recently bought and aren't there plans to restore it?

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Chicagoguy

What are the plans for the Uptown Theater? Wasn't it recently bought and aren't there plans to restore it?

It's in JAM's hands now. The major sticking point as I recall was between them and Mary-Ann Smith about the final configuration of the theater, it held up the appropriation of TIF funds for the restoration and the economy further set things back.

The new alderman has said that the Uptown will be a priority so we'll see what happens.

[lawfin]

God I wish they didn't tear down Nortown....maybe they could rebuild it as a bollywood theatre....you'd think it might have the audience given the proximity to Devon.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by BWChicago

It's not really a very viable model anymore outside of the already-existing ones. Too few screens, too small capacity, and without stadium seating, they can't effectively compete - and they're almost always cheaply done, with small screens, weirdly shaped rooms, sound bleed. Then you get into code issues and it makes it even trickier at this point than it was in the 70s and 80s when most of these splits occurred. It would almost be easier to build out a vacant big-box into a multiplex. Assuming they're using essentially the same layout as the Hyde Park had previously rather than gutting it and re-dividing, I'm betting they'll squeeze one more screen out of the stage.

The Harper was converted much like the Evanston was, by extending the balcony floor towards stage, so it has seats in the 350 range. (That also made other reuse possibilities more difficult). So each auditorium is roughly twice the size of the screens at the 400. They've done a good job bringing the 400 back from a really bad condition, so maybe they can pull it off here - and the 400 obviously draws a lot from Loyola. The LaGrange was spruced up nicely too. It will be difficult. I'm extremely surprised that it's come back to a proposal like this after all these plans. But no, I don't think it would be a viable model elsewhere in the city.

Yeah, it's awkward the way the splits happen. If there's nowhere else to see a movie, it's fine and worth putting up with. In Ann Arbor, the closest movie theater to campus was at the old State theater and Michigan Theater. The Mich Theater was a single screen, and the state was divided into two at the balcony. Both showed only indie films. The ground floor area was converted into an urban outfitters, and the floor slope was shallow enough that they could work with it. When Urban Outfitters opened that store in 1994, the expoxed steel girders of the balcony and rough brick at the exposed walls fascinating to me as a kid. I was 11 at the time.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by BWChicago

It's not really a very viable model anymore outside of the already-existing ones. Too few screens, too small capacity, and without stadium seating, they can't effectively compete - and they're almost always cheaply done, with small screens, weirdly shaped rooms, sound bleed. Then you get into code issues and it makes it even trickier at this point than it was in the 70s and 80s when most of these splits occurred. It would almost be easier to build out a vacant big-box into a multiplex. Assuming they're using essentially the same layout as the Hyde Park had previously rather than gutting it and re-dividing, I'm betting they'll squeeze one more screen out of the stage.

I dunno, there has been a steady increase in the number of disused old theaters in Chicago being returned to a useful life as concert venues or movie theaters. Off the top of my head there is the New 400, Music Box, the Portage, The Logan, and The Patio all returned or returning from vacant states or disrepair. There is also talk of restoring the Ramova theater (Music Box's sister theater) for use as the south-side hipster, independent film, old movies mecca.

I go to the Portage theater frequently for their silent movie nights and now for their Northwest Chicago Film Society screenings of forgotten greats. The theater actually nears capacity on some nights which is great since its a 2500 seat theater or something like that.

They've done a good job bringing the 400 back from a really bad condition, so maybe they can pull it off here - and the 400 obviously draws a lot from Loyola.

Which is why the Harper is perfect for their business model; it will draw a lot from University of Chicago.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Chicagoguy

What are the plans for the Uptown Theater? Wasn't it recently bought and aren't there plans to restore it?

The restoration costs are astronomical. Yea, Jam bought it...big deal. They paid $3 million. It will costs upwards of $40 million to fix. No private entity has that kind of cash to throw around. And it will not be materializing anytime soon, especially with the state and city mired in economic black holes. This dosen't even touch on the fact that there have been no viable reuse proposals. Most of the older theaters in Chicago (Vic, Riv, Aragon, Congress) are pretty run down themselves and are general admission mosh pits with all seating removed. They only get used a few times a week as it is, and the Aragon/Congress max out the size of acts that would still be performing in these kinds of places before jumping to stadiums.

Can the city absorb another 4,000 seat theatre doing Broadway shows, far outside the downtown core? Then you get into issues like parking, access, and the safety of the neighborhood in general. The challenges are staggering.

I think Jam bought it while riding the Olympic bid wave, hoping that all sorts of neighborhoods would start seeing influxes of cash. Their move was probably as much an effort to keep it out of Live Nation's hands than it was a serious proposal to fix it up. I find it difficult to remain optimistic it will ever be restored, and it truly is sad our society so casually throws these types of gems away. What does that say about our values? Unfortunately the space was obsolete almost the instant it was built. Best case scenario will probably be a facade-ectomy, something similar to the Shriner Temple/Bloomingdales....and Broadway is hardly N. Michigan Ave. Likely scenario? It continues to be passed between owners and courtrooms while rotting away for another 10 or 20 years before becoming structurally unstable.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

The restoration costs are astronomical. Yea, Jam bought it...big deal. They paid $3 million. It will costs upwards of $40 million to fix. No private entity has that kind of cash to throw around. And it will not be materializing anytime soon, especially with the state and city mired in economic black holes. This dosen't even touch on the fact that there have been no viable reuse proposals. Most of the older theaters in Chicago (Vic, Riv, Aragon, Congress) are pretty run down themselves and are general admission mosh pits with all seating removed. They only get used a few times a week as it is, and the Aragon/Congress max out the size of acts that would still be performing in these kinds of places before jumping to stadiums.

Can the city absorb another 4,000 seat theatre doing Broadway shows, far outside the downtown core? Then you get into issues like parking, access, and the safety of the neighborhood in general. The challenges are staggering.

I think Jam bought it while riding the Olympic bid wave, hoping that all sorts of neighborhoods would start seeing influxes of cash. Their move was probably as much an effort to keep it out of Live Nation's hands than it was a serious proposal to fix it up. I find it difficult to remain optimistic it will ever be restored, and it truly is sad our society so casually throws these types of gems away. What does that say about our values? Unfortunately the space was obsolete almost the instant it was built. Best case scenario will probably be a facade-ectomy, something similar to the Shriner Temple/Bloomingdales....and Broadway is hardly N. Michigan Ave. Likely scenario? It continues to be passed between owners and courtrooms while rotting away for another 10 or 20 years before becoming structurally unstable.

$40 million is quite the number to come up with. Despite half the size, even this mess in Detroit will be only half the price to restore


source winterwonderland.com

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

I dunno, there has been a steady increase in the number of disused old theaters in Chicago being returned to a useful life as concert venues or movie theaters. Off the top of my head there is the New 400, Music Box, the Portage, The Logan, and The Patio all returned or returning from vacant states or disrepair. There is also talk of restoring the Ramova theater (Music Box's sister theater) for use as the south-side hipster, independent film, old movies mecca.

I go to the Portage theater frequently for their silent movie nights and now for their Northwest Chicago Film Society screenings of forgotten greats. The theater actually nears capacity on some nights which is great since its a 2500 seat theater or something like that.
...

While I'd love to see more of them, in recent decades I think we've lost more theatres than gained.

Not all of them were old, but it's a sign that the market for small theatres isn't really there. Esquire, 900 North, Watertower, McClurg, Fine Arts, Burnham (or whatever it was on South Wabash), Chestnut, Three Penny, Lakeshore just to name those off the top of my head.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

The restoration costs are astronomical. Yea, Jam bought it...big deal. They paid $3 million. It will costs upwards of $40 million to fix. No private entity has that kind of cash to throw around. And it will not be materializing anytime soon, especially with the state and city mired in economic black holes. This dosen't even touch on the fact that there have been no viable reuse proposals. Most of the older theaters in Chicago (Vic, Riv, Aragon, Congress) are pretty run down themselves and are general admission mosh pits with all seating removed. They only get used a few times a week as it is, and the Aragon/Congress max out the size of acts that would still be performing in these kinds of places before jumping to stadiums.

Can the city absorb another 4,000 seat theatre doing Broadway shows, far outside the downtown core? Then you get into issues like parking, access, and the safety of the neighborhood in general. The challenges are staggering.

I think Jam bought it while riding the Olympic bid wave, hoping that all sorts of neighborhoods would start seeing influxes of cash. Their move was probably as much an effort to keep it out of Live Nation's hands than it was a serious proposal to fix it up. I find it difficult to remain optimistic it will ever be restored, and it truly is sad our society so casually throws these types of gems away. What does that say about our values? Unfortunately the space was obsolete almost the instant it was built. Best case scenario will probably be a facade-ectomy, something similar to the Shriner Temple/Bloomingdales....and Broadway is hardly N. Michigan Ave. Likely scenario? It continues to be passed between owners and courtrooms while rotting away for another 10 or 20 years before becoming structurally unstable.

There is money in the TIF that is intended for it. JAM will need to secure other funding though to get at it. In the long run hopefully it will turn out to be a nicer version of the Riviera.

Maybe a viable plan B would be for the city to take ownership in the event JAM fails and strip the structure of everything useful/significant and build a new theater downtown at a later date.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by emathias

While I'd love to see more of them, in recent decades I think we've lost more theatres than gained.

Not all of them were old, but it's a sign that the market for small theatres isn't really there. Esquire, 900 North, Watertower, McClurg, Fine Arts, Burnham (or whatever it was on South Wabash), Chestnut, Three Penny, Lakeshore just to name those off the top of my head.

Most of them were overshadowed by newer stadium builds. Namely the River East and other close in multiplexes.

The Esquire still did a good business due to location and the art product it played. AMC had to give it up though due to the DOJ and the landowners sold out to M development for the hotel that would never be.

[ardecila]

The Esquire is still standing, is it not?

This is possibly the only occasion where I want Brendan Reilly to step in and shut this travesty down. It's such a beautiful building... possibly the most obvious candidate for landmarking in the downtown area.

Unfortunately Bernie Stone killed it in 1994 and so it's not eligible for consideration anymore. What an idiotic rule... the Landmarks Commission cannot act to rectify their own mistakes.

[Rizzo]

Yes, the Esquire is still standing. The Marquee is on right now, although malfunctioning, and there's only one business occupying it. I don't understand why they get a pass card for their "near vacant" appearance and our building gets yelled at for a small piece of plywood over an accidentally broken window.

[J_M_Tungsten]

So not really sure where to ask this, but I figure one of you guys may know. There is a bridge (I'm assuming for an old railroad) that is just south of the Kinzie St bridge that is always in the up position. Does anyone know why this hasn't been removed? I kinda like it there, but some people I know think of it as an eyesore.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

So not really sure where to ask this, but I figure one of you guys may know. There is a bridge (I'm assuming for an old railroad) that is just south of the Kinzie St bridge that is always in the up position. Does anyone know why this hasn't been removed? I kinda like it there, but some people I know think of it as an eyesore.

cause it looks so cool.

[Mr Downtown]

Can any image better encapsulate the history of Chicago than having today's skyline framed by the bridge that carried Chicago's first railroad across the river?



The Union Pacific Carroll Street bridge is now a Chicago Landmark. Here's the HAER Report if you want to know more about the history.

It has been discussed as part of a Carroll Street transitway.

[denizen467]

^ Incidentally, was there also an issue about clearance under the bridge - that a bridge ordinarily closed for trolley usage would have to be at a higher position than the current structure? If so, does that effectively doom the existing structure from a future productive life - or can it be re-set on higher footings? We've already just lost one Goose Island bridge...

[denizen467]

Out of nowhere (to me), news of major progress on the eco/liveability/cycling front:


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,6062642.story

New bike lanes called a cycle track are planned for Chicago
By Jon Hilkevitch, Tribune reporter
February 27, 2011

A new type of bike lane is being designed for Chicago to boost the confidence of cyclists that it's safe to ride on streets without fear of being struck by vehicles.

The special lane is called a cycle track, and it's unlike the regular marked bicycle lanes that run next to vehicle traffic lanes and are separated only by paint on pavement.

The key to a cycle track is a physical barricade, such as a construction Jersey barrier or a raised concrete planter box located to the left of the bikes-only lane. The curb or a sidewalk would exist to the right of the cycle track, and all motorized vehicles — whether moving or parked — would be on the left of the cycle track barricade.

The Chicago Department of Transportation recently received a $3.2 million federal grant to build and test a cycle track. A section of Stony Island Avenue, between 69th and 77th streets, was selected for the experiment.

...

[J_M_Tungsten]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Can any image better encapsulate the history of Chicago than having today's skyline framed by the bridge that carried Chicago's first railroad across the river?

Very well put, thank you for the info. Now if only we could do something about that Sun Times building...