At top is a rare photo that shows the landmark RKO Regent Theatre circa 1942 before it would close down two decades later (click on image to enlarge). The theater at 116th and ACP/7th Avenue hasn't been showing movies within its Venetian Palazzo exterior since 1963, so seeing some of the original bare-bulb signage out front is quite a sight to behold. This grand structure was built by renowned theater architect Thomas W. Lamb back in 1913 and would have been one of the first all film establishments to open in the city. Today, the old theater houses a church which has helped restore it in the most recent decades. Check out our past post for more history on one of the most unique buildings uptown and get a glimpse of the interior:
LINK
It is a breathtakingly beautiful building and one wishes the Church could get some sort of assistance with restoration of the exterior. I pass it sometimes on the bus and always make a point of looking at it and having a vision of what it could be again.
ReplyDeleteThey had scaffolding up for the longest time and when it finally came down the facade was still in dreadful shape. I don’t know why they didn’t at the very least give it a quick power wash and replace some of the broken glass. Parishioners could have done that. They appear to have a fairly large congregation, some tourist trade and I believe they also are the distribution point for the West Village Food Pantry.
ReplyDeleteI sure wish some impressario would restore it to its theatrical grandeur and turn it into a legitimate playhouse! That would be something!
ReplyDeleteThe Regent seems to have been among the very earliest theaters built specifically to show films—it was advertised as “Harlem’s Exclusive $600,000 Photoplay House.” Even so, there was a variety of entertainment on offer. In the beginning, the 25- cent admission charge bought six vaudeville acts, a two-reel comic film, and a five-reel movie drama like The Last Days of Pompeii. But the theater, which had 1800 seats and room for a full orchestra that could play along with the film, didn’t make money under its first owner, Henry Mervin. In the late teens it was taken over by Samuel Lionel Rothafel, better known as “Roxy”—it was his first big success in show business.
ReplyDeleteIt really is a gem and should be a theater again.
ReplyDeleteIs it a land marked building? If so, isn't there responsibility on their part to maintain the exterior? I don't understand why members of a congregation wouldn't do everything in their power (each and every one of them) to make this place look as wonderful as possible. Or is it that they are just too lazy?
ReplyDeleteThe church is currently doing substantial renovations on the interior. Exterior renovations are to follow mid-Spring.
ReplyDeleteI think the building was landmarked in '94.
ReplyDelete@Chris, perhaps obscure remarks on the "assumed indifference" of an entire congregation should be reserved until you're are able to get additional information.
@SAR, thanks for the info.
ReplyDeleteSAR, it's a fair question. Why are so many historic church buildings across Harlem in such dire need of repair? Financial mismanagement? Lack of culpability for those responsible for maintenance? Too many buildings in Harlem have gone under due to shocking mismanagement.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to seeing the renovations.
@Chris--speaking only in generalities I do know that maintenance and repair of a landmarked building can be dauntingly expensive. Many churches fight landmarking for this (and other) reasons.
ReplyDeleteSanou's Mum, I didn't realize it cost more to repair landmarked buildings. Is that because of all the red tape involved? Our apartment (can't afford a whole building!) is in a neighborhood that is pending land mark status (as highlighted in other threads). Would it make sense then to get stuff like the facade taken care of now before land mark status is assigned?
ReplyDeleteAlso still hoping to have a roof deck done!
SAR...didn't mean to single you out, it is just sad to see a lot of fine looking buildings in major need of repair. I pass one every day around 118th & St. Nicolas that has been in limbo for ages.
Chris, I am not an expert but as an example, our church in Chelsea, landmarked at our request many years ago, had dreadful fire as we renovated. We Episcopalians do that. For some reason renovate=burn down to us. Uncanny. So although we would have done it any way, slate roof tiles had to be replaced by slate tiles, not asphalt lookalikes. The copper tower had to be copper. You get the idea.
ReplyDeleteI think you can play a bit looser with a building in a landmarked district than an individually landmarked building but I would check it out.
Laziness has nothing to do with the state of disrepair. First Corinthian had to raise half a million dollars to start this latest round of renovations.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part churches aren't wealthy institutions, especially those that have a modest income congregation. Heck, even St. John the Divine, which has a fairly well-off parishioners, had to build that ugly apartment building on their grounds to generate more income.
The church has been chronicling the renovation project on their website (click through to the "about" or blog pages to see details and more new and old photos.
The problem in Harlem is these unique buildings fall into the hands of those who have no regard for caring for the building, which is clearly apparent from its obvious neglect and tacky modifications. The good thing about Harlem is so many buildings are ignored to the point of surviving nearly a century or more, but in a sad state of repair, but not beyond being saved. We have seen many restored buildings in recent years, to the credit of those who have a love for the buildings of Harlem and have taken on these projects, sometimes not knowing what they are getting into.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link Joe. Interesting reading. It certainly looks like an incredible amount of effort is going into this one. Best of luck to them.
ReplyDelete@Chris...no problem! I often look forward to ur responses. I think you add alot to the discussions on here
ReplyDelete