I don’t generally post on weekends or holidays (Happy Memorial Day!), but I went to the free Grand Opening of the Alameda Theatre on Saturday morning and would encourage those that have not gone yet or are still pooh-poohing the project to take a look see before you continue another pooh. I was one of many Alamedans who stood in line (or rather in a mob, the planning process for this was a little disorganized) to get into the theatre after the requisite speeches. I don’t know how many people were there, a rough guesstimate would be somewhere in the ball park of 700 - 1000. Suffice it to say, I was not one of the first 100 people to get a free t-shirt. We had intended to check out Singing in the Rain, but instead opted to watch Wizard of Oz since it was in the main theatre, we sat in the balcony or maybe that was considered the mezzanine, which indeed had a great view of the massive screen, and the theatre which seats a lot of people was pretty full. And the seats! The seats are very comfortable, which is always a plus.
The restoration is amazing. Even after all the photos I had seen detailing the progress, it’s nothing like what you will see in real life. I imagine that the restoration must be even more satisfying for folks who were around to witness the shabby state of the Alameda Theatre when it finally closed its doors or those that saw it in its incarnations as a roller rink, etc… After all the dire warnings that we had heard that it would only be a partial restoration or that the addition of the cineplex portion would ruin the feel of the theatre, it was a relief to know that those dire warnings were not based in reality. The entrance to the cineplex portion on the ground floor is tastefully done, very minimal impact on the historic theater itself. The entrance on the upper floors which provides the ADA access to the historic theater via the cineplex is pretty much hidden away in a small alcove.
Our family decided to walk around Park Street a bit afterward and “stimulate” some of our local Alameda economy. When we decided it was time to head home we walked past the theater to get to the parking garage, there was a line down the block almost reaching to Oak Street of people buying tickets to see a first run movie. Maybe it’s just a novelty right now and the demand will peter off, but so far, so good.
Apparently there are some notable kinks to work out, between the show listings (you could always go to the Alameda Theatre website, which does have a pretty prominent caveat that showtimes are subject to change and that you should call the theatre just to be sure) and the online ticket purchasing mechanism not working. And with reports that the the lines end up getting a little wonky, Kyle Conner should probably invest in some of those retractable line thingies to help control the crowds a little bit more.
What is even more amazing than either the renovation or the crowds of people who came out to gawk at a big ole building, is the 180 that Don Roberts has taken on the theatre. Although I imagine that a lot of people will be saying “It’s not the Theater renovation I opposed, it was the cineplex and garage portion.” But it’s hard to not get caught up in the excitement of an opening of something so huge, and honestly I don’t really blame Don R. for wanting to be a part of the action.
And to think that Ani Dimusheva and her cohorts came close to denying this for the rest of Alameda. Not to mention the “slate” and their loony outfit, not to mention their brilliant election strategy.
Phew!
Glad they failed MISERABLY in their efforts.
Comment by Roberto — May 26, 2008 @ 7:44 am
Dear Roberto:
Please explain & clearly justify how and why a $37MM enteratinment project for a city of 70,000 people should be publicly funded. Extra points for clarity and accurate numbers. Note: empty generalties like “it’s beautiful” or “now we have movies on the island” do not count.
Comment by dave — May 26, 2008 @ 10:13 am
Ah! There’s the whiner Dave again!
If the crowds outside the theater (and the surrounding businesses) are any indication, $37m seems like a great investment for Alameda. You (and your friends from Action Alameda) had the opportunity to present your case in Nov 06 and let’s just say, the vast majority of Alamedans did not buy your doomsday scenario.
I suggest taking a walk … it is a beautiful day outside. And when you are done, stop by the new theater. It might do you some good to get outside.
Comment by Roberto — May 26, 2008 @ 11:08 am
The restoration of the theater never would have happened without public money, period. If left entirely up to the free market, it is almost certain that the building would have been torn down or altered beyond recognition.
If one does not believe in using public money for things like historic preservation, then there is no possible justification for the expenditure. If one believes that taxpayer dollars should, under certain circumstances, be used to preserve buildings that are part of our architectural heritage and sense of place, then the project is at least partially justified on historic preservation grounds alone.
Some will say, of course, that using taxpayer dollars for preservation is fine, but the City should have drawn the line at restoring the historic building. Obviously, this is a point that can be debated, but I strongly believe that if the City had merely restored the building without entering into a public-private partnership to ensure that it has an economically viable use, it would have been saddled with a financial white elephant.
At this point, critics will rush to present examples of restored theaters in other cities; when doing so, please indicate whether each building is a money maker, money loser, or a break-even for the city in question. For example, Oakland’s gorgeous Paramount Theater has been a money pit, even according to members of its own Board of Directors:
I am not a big fan of the parking garage, and I agree that it is a bit ironic for a city whose general plan seeks to “de-emphasize the automobile” to construct such a towering monument to the private car. However, I have come to accept the garage as a necessary component of the financial success of the theater project.
Placing the project in the heart of the Park St. district instead of at a more remote location means that many more people will walk, bike, and take transit to the movies, but I am not naïve enough to believe that nobody is going to drive. As much as I might hope that a theater without adjacent parking would succeed, the economics seem to dictate otherwise. I am no movie expert, but I asked a friend who knows something about the business what it takes to make a theater successful, and the first word out of his mouth was “parking.” So, I am content with the fact that this project has considerably less parking than a typical suburban cineplex, and that the project will succeed despite the reduced parking because there are so many viable transportation options in the Park St. district.
Comment by Michael Krueger — May 26, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
Roberto:
If 37MM “seems like a great investement to you, I suggest you learn some arithmetic.
If the project increased reatil sales in the district by the absurd sum of 100MM, a number that would make even Robb Ratto blush, the city would realize only 1MM in sales tax revenues, a fraction of the debt service on the project. The lease payment from the opeartor is only another fraction. The largest portion of debt service comes from property tax increments, the projections for which igfnore the corporate advantage that Prop 13 gives new buyers.
I’ve tried to type this slowly for you Roberto, I know such things are beyond your ken, but what the above paragraph means is that THE COMPLEX IS A FINANCIAL BLACK HOLE.
Comment by dave — May 26, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
MK,
This is not preservation of culture or heritage, it is a gigantic giveaway to a commercial enterprise. Were the theater to be a public museum to film, say, or a public auditorium, your historic preservation argument might begin to hold water. But this is in no what a cultural project as you allude: it is a business. What commercial enterprise shall the taxpayers underwrite next?
Comment by dave — May 26, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
Dave, see Krueger’s comment #4 and weep. Clearly, you haven’t gotten over the 2:1 defeat in Nov 06. May I again suggest getting out more often?
Comment by Roberto — May 26, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
I don’t recall the theater ever making the ballot.
Comment by dave — May 26, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
And I’m still waiting for your financial justification, Roberto.
Comment by dave — May 26, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
#4
“Some will say, of course, that using taxpayer dollars for preservation is fine, but the City should have drawn the line at restoring the historic building. Obviously, this is a point that can be debated, but I strongly believe that if the City had merely restored the building without entering into a public-private partnership to ensure that it has an economically viable use, it would have been saddled with a financial white elephant.”
At this point we don’t know if the project is going to be financially viable or not. There are huge costs involved in running a theater and parking garage. Perhaps the rising cost of fuel will keep people closer to home and going to the movies instead of vacation; or, people may lack the money to go to movies. We really don’t know.
The issue of the theater and parking garage is really a variety of issues: theater, financing, public money, parking garage, architecture, downtown planning, transportation, role of government, etc. At this point, all we can do is go forward. However, the finances of the project need to be watched and the city needs a plan in case it does not work out as hoped.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — May 26, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
dave,
when you arrived on this blog months ago and protested this deal I asked you to meet me to share an in depth explanation of your views which for various reasons has just never happened. No sweat there, but my understanding hasn’t gained much depth in that period either.
Some of what I think I understand is this: the bond and it’s interest was been projected to be paid with pre-existing tax increments which weren’t headed to general fund anyway by definition of what a redevelopment zone is. The historic renovation may not have been needed for Conner to build a cineplex with his own money ( which he mostly did) but most folks think that if we had only spent the $13 mill for historic restoration we would have a lovely monument to history which wouldn’t make any money either and would not be a viable theater.
On the other hand the cineplex does help justify the historic renovation by making the old theater an actively used public amenity.
Meanwhile the $37 mill with interest is how much total? When we buy homes with 30 year mortgages we get to write off being taxed on the interest but otherwise that interest is money down the tubes which we rationalize as needed to provide a way to acquire the property for the majority of us who can’t pay hundreds of thousands in cash.
It is also kind of counter intuitive when a private developer builds a building on publicly owned land.
I am not arguing a right or wrong or any real merits here either way, but just spinning out some information for feed back so I can get a little better grip. I would have to sit face to face with somebody and have an extended question and answer over financial papers to begin to have a meaningful grasp of all this and maybe then have a definitive opinion.
However, under former City Manager Jim Flint the public rejected a proposal he floated to have a private company take over a section of Park street through eminent domain, theoretically giving the district an instant chain store revitalization, a sort of heart lung transplant, so to speak. The Park Street Visioning could be seen as a sort of dog and pony show to quell the public ire over Flint’s attempted back room coup (my spin).
Whether it was practical or not, the one very clear and overwhelming desire the public expressed during that visioning process was to bring back the historic theater and that is what has happened.
Comment by Mark I — May 26, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
To clarify, it’s counterintuitive TO ME when a building is built by one person on land owned by another entity, but my perceptions of such things are perhaps not very sophisticated because I have lived mostly hand to mouth my entire life.
Comment by Mark I — May 26, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Mark,
My numbers on the theater are on an old laptop at the office, I don’t have them at the moment. I’ll recite what I can from memory here. Some of the recollections may be inaccurate, I have not looked at them in some time, but if the numbers are off, the concepts are still right on:
Off top of head:
-Debt service paid from tax increments of redev district which includes a large chunk of Alameda’s commercial space. Tax increment is the increase in property tax over time, ie the 2% increase allowed by P13 and fresh assessments from newly purchased property. City assumptions on this are over optimistic as P13 makes it pretty easy for a corporate purchaser to dodge a reassessment (ie buy the corporation that owns the land, tiitle stays in name of corp regardless of who owns the stock)
-City’s lease to operator very low, far below mkt rate (sorry, numbers no accessible right now). Lease rates do increase measuarbly in several yrs (5 yrs IIRC)
-City hopes to gain additional sales tax revenue but given that their cut is only 1% and that movie tix and parking fees are not taxed, the likely pickup is very small.
-The number that I specifically recall from prior calcs is that the city’s best case return (best case meaning operator performs on lease and sales tax meets their rosy projections) is 1.5% per year. They could lend money to the Holy Trinity and enjoy a larger return without the risk or moral hazard of lending to an entertainment business.
The point is that City has encumbered a large chunk of future tax revenues to a private entity that provides a non-essential service that even if it does pan out in the luckiest of lucky scenarios, provides a barely noticeable return for substantial risk.
How is this sound policy?
Comment by dave — May 26, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
Let’s hope the group managing the theater figures out 1) how to get listed as a theater with showtimes in The Chron, for starters and 2) improves on the opening choice of films.
Appears that I’ll still have to travel to the Piedmont or Berkeley or the city for anything outside the box. I definitely hope I’m wrong.
Comment by anne — May 26, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
not to jump into an argument that’s already taking place here… but to all the naysayers - what would you rather have seen go into that space? an applebee’s? planet hollywood? a nail shop?
the theater is BEAUTIFUL and i find it hard to believe anyone could see it as anything other than an asset to a great city like alameda to have restored a historic building such as this one.
so again, i’ll ask, what’s the alternative?
Comment by s — May 26, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
The Chronicle did list the times– and because of A for Alameda it is the first theater listed–
Alameda Stadium 8. It is also on your Yahoo and Google movie section.
Also, since it is independently operated, this theater can show ANY movie that he can book, so I suggest that you make your preferences known. Some of the smaller theaters would be great for art or independent movies.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — May 26, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
Dave,
First of all, the restoration of the theater building constitutes the preservation of Alameda’s culture and heritage, regardless of whether the venue is privately or publically operated. The building was originally a privately operated entertainment venue, so re-opening it as such is actually more in keeping with its history, not less.
Now, if the City spent millions of dollars of taxpayer money to restore the theater building for community use (concerts, repertory films, etc.), and then had to spend millions of additional dollars subsidizing the operation of that venue (à la the Paramount), wouldn’t that be worse for the City’s budget than a partnership in a business that at least has a realistic potential to make a profit? Granted, it’s entirely possible that the theater complex will lose money, but isn’t a government-subsidized community space a guaranteed money loser?
Also, your analysis of the finances assumes that the City’s only interest in the deal is a straight dollar return on investment. I don’t think that’s the true motive here; as you point out, almost any other investment would offer more dollar return for less risk.
In my view, the taxpayers’ true interest in the project is not the dollars returned directly to City coffers (return on investment in the strictest sense), but rather the continued revitalization of the Park St. business district and the inherent value of restoring and preserving a stunningly beautiful historic building. Granted, both of these are much harder to quantify, and “yeah, but was it worth it?” will always be a debatable point.
I think it’s not too early to declare the restoration of the theater a success; however, it is premature to pass judgment on the economic viability of the project and its impact on the Park St. district. If the project is a flop and the district sees no benefits from it, I will be sure to admit that my support was misguided and congratulate you on your foresight.
Comment by Michael Krueger — May 26, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
Thank you Michael for #4– you said it well– the alternative for this magnificent building, an architectural treasure, was continued deterioration and destruction. None of the alternative plans presented by the opposition contained nearly enough capital to get the needed work on the building done, let alone make it a viable business.
Further note: Mr. Corcores donated the full amount necessary to restore the mezzanine mural at the gala.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — May 26, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
You can get mad all you want. The theater is beautiful and fun. The popcorn tastes about 1MM times better that central cinema. I do believe they are planning on having a fair amount of films from sundance etc. I went to the fancy party and they played a lot of trailers from sundance. Altough they will have “Sex in the City” and I wouldn’t miss that for the world.
Comment by Virginia — May 26, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
>>> I agree that it is a bit ironic for a city whose general plan seeks to “de-emphasize the automobile” to construct such a towering monument to the private car
Indeed.
Another irony, to me, is that the theater is listed as “Alameda Stadium.” You see,,, back where I come from… cities starting using this kind of model in the ’80’s to fund baseball and football stadiums w/ the public moneys. It was an investement in the community. Of course tickets to these events only got more expensive. And then the cities themselves (St. Louis is my intimate example) were drained faster from the debt service and have been suffering ever since.
Of course the baseball team doesn’t mind… and the wealthy sports fans coming in from the ‘burbs don’t mind… but for the city, these Stadiums didn’t do what they were supposed to do.
Oh well. One of these days I will capitulate and take my kids to a movie. And I’m glad to hear they at least did a decent job. The garage is a hideous shame, imho.
Roberto, I would have some rather harsh words for your slamming of Ani, but I’m gonna lay off for now. You really aren’t worth it.
Comment by Jack B — May 26, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
Did I miss the memo that annointed Ani as the Pope? Jack B, you can take your harsh words and stuff it in a dark cavity.
Comment by Roberto — May 26, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
since this blog is ‘aftermath’ can someone tell me how the teen riot on webster street at approx. 11:30pm last night may be related to this fabulous opening of the new Alameda Theater? Furthermore, to comment on the ‘alternative use’ of the historic structure, how about restoring it for the performing arts including community theater and musical performances? Is that not what the original building’s intent was?
Comment by alice — May 26, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
I have to say I really enjoyed taking my two sons to the Alameda Theater today. The restoration is beautiful, the seating was extremely comfortable, the floor raked enough so the heads of the row in front of me were not obscuring my view. (I was in the balcony) There was ample room between rows. All in all, it was a very comfortable experience. I give the “restoration” great marks - congratulations to all involved.
After the end of the credits we took some time to wander around and we really enjoyed what we saw and how we felt looking around. We even sat in on the last part of the credits for SPEED RACER because all the other patrons had left - I just wanted to simulate the experience of one of the smaller rooms. There were several empty small theaters which we went in, and all seemed like they would be great places to see films.
I don’t know how the multiplex corridors feel when crowded, but new and empty, (there were only a few other wanderers like us), it had a nice, open, clean feel to it with a nice view to the south. Again, I congratulate all who worked so hard and for so long, to improve the plans.
When we left we also hung out on the top of the parking garage enjoying the view.
As for the popcorn, it thought it was as good as Central Cinema, but certainly not better - another case where increased cost did not improve quality. Perhaps watching it get shoveled into bags with a plastic dust pan played a role in that perception - but it was clear that the counter crew made a sensible choice in using the dust pan instead of the much-too-small scoops, which looked to be the size PEETS uses for coffee beans.
To respond to “s” and others - there were plenty of other possibilities instead of this theater, but if you consider none of them, and don’t think about the financial viability of this theater in the long run, or the impact that the CC’s decision put this much of the city’s finances into the project and how it will affect the rest of the city, then yes by all means I am glad to have this wonderful theater here in our town.
Comment by David Kirwin — May 26, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
Roberto, on this Memorial Day… let’s just remember that a lot of sacrifices have been made to allow you the right to be entertained by hollywood fluff and for concerned citizens like Ani to block what is in her view a bad investment for her city. Both of you are as American as apple pie.
Now, maybe all of you taxpayers would like to kick in for the Fillmore East Bay so I don’t have to drive to San Francisco every time I want to see a show.
Comment by Jack B — May 26, 2008 @ 10:24 pm
[...] Theater: Some suggestions The reviews are in (here, and here, for starters) and the Alameda theater restoration is getting rave reviews. I was there for the [...]
Pingback by Alameda Theater: Some suggestions « Alameda Musings — May 26, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
Jack - even before the Fillmore -East Bay, I think it would be prudent for the City to build a replica of the Conservatory of Flowers on our South Shore Beach. It would be pretty, and we could put a 1st class restaurant in it. I have always heard so many people in Alameda whine about not having a good restaurant with that bay view. If the city pays for it I will manage finding someone to run the facility. So how ’bout it?
Next we can work on a concert venue, maybe near the Ferry building, - err ferry canopy. For low vehicle impact we can plan that everyone take the ferry to the shows, or maybe by then we will also have the “bicycle crossing” of the estuary…
Comment by David Kirwin — May 26, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
I haven’t been to the theater yet but I heard and believe that it is beautifully restored (sans the upper balconies, correct?) That does not change the fact that the megaplex addition and the “monument to the car” next to it are things that never should have happened in the civic center of Alameda. If the goal was restoration of the theater for the public good, the city could have done that with a lot less then $37 million. If the goal was to have someone other than the city operate it, they could have turned to the Speakeasy company which operates the Parkway and the Cerrito theaters (2 screen). If the worry was parking, they could have looked at the Piedmont and Grand Lake to see that the lack of high-rise parking structure in the vicinity does not affect the attendance. There were other parking solutions that could have been employed, too, but they were willfully ignored. The hands-off attitude and statements of the transportation members in regards to the garage (John Knox White said he had no opinion on it one way or another) are strange to say the least.
The fact that the theater is finally restored (and again, I’m happy that it is) also does not change the fact that the process getting there exposed major problems in our city government–favoritism, cronyism, lack of flexibility/creativity, fear of and contempt of the public at large. It exposed a planning board willing to bend to the wishes of a small but powerful elite and grant piecemeal pet project approvals, instead of thinking large and in terms of a city general plan, or at least a civic center plan. When able, talented people call Alameda “provincial” and refuse to have anything to do with us, I’m sure this is big part of what they mean.
So somehow or other, the theater is restored. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and this one was particularly atrocious.
Comment by AD — May 26, 2008 @ 11:30 pm
Re #22–
the Alameda Theatre was built as a movie theater, not a performing arts center, and was never intended to be a multi-use facility. The Alameda High School auditorium, now called Kofman Auditorium, was built in the 1920’s to be a performing arts facility for the community and the high school. It has facilities for live performances that the Alameda Theatre lacks, such as dressing rooms, and it is one block from the theater.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — May 27, 2008 @ 12:44 am
re #17
MK, point by point from your post #17:
Yes, the original theater WAS a private for profit enterprise, but I hardly see how subsidizing it now is in keeping with that history. What we have now is a private enterprise that is essentially shielded from loses by the city, while keeping nearly all of the profit should it succeed. Private that is NOT. Shall we re-create the asparagus fields of Bay Farm Island as subsidized ventures? I simply don’t understand what you mean by this.
As for your comparison with the Paramount, a subsidized space IS a guaranteed loser for the city — and in real (not nominal) terms so is the Alameda Plex. Tell me again what makes sense about that?
As for the city’s intent, the city & PSBA loudly trumpeted the inflated fanciful financial returns that the project would supposedly earn, so I am merely tossing hunk of BS back at them.
As for your final point on the long term benefits, PSBA and its members DO benefit, much as a sports team benefits from a stadium that the taxpayers fund. But the city’s financial viability takes a hit and the citizens are denied the essential services that the tax increments could have funded. One might sardinically conclude it would have been easier to simply write a check to Robb Ratto & Co.
To put that in perspective, this project costs approx 9 years of the Parks & Rec budget, a similar multiple of the Measure H school funding initiative, and 1.5 years of police protection. The price is equal to approx 7 years worth of gross sales tax collection. It adds more than $1000 debt per each household in the city to the overlapping debt burden. You say there will always be debate over whether the project was worth it, but ignore for a moment the tasty popcorn, Indiana Jones, and Sex & the City and look at the math. The numbers will tell you it was not.
I do respect your attempt to justify the project in economic terms. You are the only person who has ever attempted to do so in a cogent way, on this blog anyway. But the project is uneconomic & unjustifiable by any standard of good government.
Comment by dave — May 27, 2008 @ 6:09 am
#22
“since this blog is ‘aftermath’ can someone tell me how the teen riot on webster street at approx. 11:30pm last night may be related to this fabulous opening of the new Alameda Theater?”
Huh?
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — May 27, 2008 @ 6:39 am
We had a great time watching Indy 4 on the big screen at the Alameda Theatre on Sunday. Looking forward to more!
Comment by Dave S. — May 27, 2008 @ 7:22 am
Ani, could you provide the source for your comment:
It doesn’t really sound like something I ever remember saying.
Comment by John Knox White — May 27, 2008 @ 9:23 am
It’s great that the theater is restored, but too early to tell if the whole project is a success, unless you don’t count the financial aspect of the project in your definition. I still don’t like the garage, but one good thing about all the protest over the project is that there is no doubt the extra attention resulted in a better design than what was proposed originally. For that reason alone, I don’t understand why some of the people here seem to enjoy baiting the people who objected to the project.
Comment by Mike Rich — May 27, 2008 @ 9:33 am
We went to the movies in ALAMEDA!!! and had brunch on Park Street at a reatauraant we had never eaten in–I also think the view along Central is great–certainly an improvement over what was there before.
Comment by Barbara Kahn — May 27, 2008 @ 10:42 am
re #33 — “baiting the opposition” — Mike, meet Roberto.
And while I may have agreed and disagreed with him on some issues — his “baiting” is precisely that — overall on this blog he by and large seems to be a source of unnecessary aggrevation and doesn’t tend to foster a civil discussion well.
How’s that saying go?
“Don’t feed the [net] troll and they’ll go away.”
Comment by Dave S. — May 27, 2008 @ 10:47 am
I am so excited to be able to see a movie in my own home town and the restoration is beautiful! Regarding the finance aspect of the project, first I believe this was an important investment for the City to make for the downtown. Second, I believe we will see the benefits of this investment over time. But judging from the number of people I saw going to the theater all week-end and parking in the garage, I would say its a success!
Comment by Karen Bey — May 27, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
with a few days between stints working in the field I swore I was not going to log too much time on line, but here I am.
I am not categorically opposed to public subsidy of certain projects, but for me, dave’s sports stadium analogy is a particularly apt example for what can be wrong with public subsidy.
If AD is Ani, (a duh) that makes sense, though the post didn’t burn my ears so I was slow to come to that on my own. I was reading #27 and often agreeing but to a less exaggerated degree.
For me #27 implies a total conscious effort by a small group to railroad the citizenry, which I don’t buy. A process at times misguided but not nefarious. The ire AD points at the T.C. seems a little irrational in terms of the theater and more like vendetta related to the election, which gets convoluted because the theater issue was a catalyst to deepening that political division with it’s roots in Measure A, complete with a opposition slate set against a so called status quo.
I have always had a sense that in 1979 things were a little more black and white, which is perhaps partly why Measure A seems too simplistic by the measure of the complex change afoot today. Good old boy systems aren’t much different but the economic and technological environment is much more complicated.
I’d like to think if we had spent only $13 million in bonds on the restoration, which would have to written off as a financial loss or very very long term investment, perhaps somebody could have been found to run the place, like the Speak Easy people. But in that scenario it would be lucky to pay for it’s day to day operation particularly since the main balcony can’t be separated into sizable screens because of the historic chandelier.
I think Mike Rich is absolutely right that the garage and cineplex buildings would have been less architecturally acceptable without the public pressure exerted.
If collectively we and our city had been as creative as AD would have liked, I think it would have been unprecedented for the most part among cities like ours trying to navigate difficult transition. For that reason I am somewhat sickened by the outcomes but more philosophical than bitter.
#30 speaking of missing context, your provocative post deserves some.
Comment by Mark I — May 27, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
Hear ye! Hear ye! The owner/author of this blog is out of touch. She writes, “I imagine that a lot of people will be saying ‘It’s not the Theater renovation I opposed, it was the cineplex and garage portion.’”
Like duh. How uninformed can you get? While CMFA compromised on a scaled-back version of the theater project, many opponents argued all along that all they wanted was the historic theater renovated.
The record shows that just about everyone wanted the movies. There were only a couple Alameda residents who spoke out about demolishing the historic theater. Other opponents simply had problems with the plan. While we can enjoy the theater together let’s not try and rewrite history.
Comment by tell all — May 27, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
I believe this is the “riot” on Webster that was alluded to earlier.
Comment by Lauren Do — May 27, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
Re contempt for citizenry etc.–
Quite a few of us citizens took the time to take part in the very large scale downtown visioning project and the subsequent economic development meetings. The project was in line with what came out of those meetings. That some people who did not participate in that process were surprised at the expense and scale of the project, means that they were not very involved until the last minute. If the project had been derailed because of their efforts, it would have been contrary to the wishes of the majority of Alamedans, despite their protests to the contrary.
Presently, hearings are being held on the future of the northern end of Park Street, as the car businesses move out. The meeting I attended was not attended by many folks who were opposed to the theater development (if any). I suggest if people have strong feelings about how things should go,they should get involved now so that we don’t have to suffer through a repeat of a very divisive argument as we did with the theater
Although I am happy that the theater is finished– I have wanted it restored for the 25 years I have lived here– I am not happy about what happened in the last couple years– there are people that might have been my friends who feel I am their enemy because of my support for the project, and others of my friends suffered through personal attacks in the process. I guess I am part of the so-called “elite” group whom the project supposedly benefited.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — May 27, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
#39
There has been a lot of trouble on Webster at night over the past year. About a year ago there were several stabbings in front of Nations and just recently fights broke out when teens rented an “unnamed” facility for a party. There probably needs to be more of a police presence at night.
Comment by AlamedaNayTiff — May 27, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
#40 Kevis, I was a part of the downtown visioning process. No one envisioned the large scale theater & garage project that exists today. Even the RFP for a theater operator requested that the operator should come up with their own parking solution.
And this whole rant about “personal attacks” is over-blown. While there is usually “one in every crowd” (e.g., Roberto), watching the videos will prove that Alamedans were very civil.
All Alamedans should be commended for taking part in the process.
Comment by tell all — May 28, 2008 @ 9:24 am
Didn’t the parking study suggest a different location for the garage (i.e., behind Elks)?
Comment by Michael Rich — May 30, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
Tell all,
I read my post again and it does not seem like a rant to me. I am just sad that it happened the way it did. If anything was overblown it was the hype that having a movie theater with more than one screen would ruin our town. I even saw the protest against the project on an anti-globalization Web site early on, for heaven’s sake.
And maybe because of being divided into groups at the downtown visioning workshops you did not discuss the idea of multiple theaters in the Alameda. It was brought up in my group, but just as a concept. When we all went to put our little stickers on the big papers with the ideas of what was important for Park Street, restoring the movie theater for movies was the top one. And it wasn’t specified how to get from A to B, but there were no restrictions on the size of the project at that time either. So it could be anything that would make a good project and restore the theater– and 8 years later that is what has happened.
Comment by Kevis Brownson — June 1, 2008 @ 1:09 am
I don’t recall a lot of specifics being discussed at the visioning and I don’t think it matters because in those type of preliminary discussions people just don’t have grip on a lot of the details or realistically see some of the possible problems. It is the same with the very first town hall meetings for the community reuse plan at the Point. In 1993 or whenever, we were throwing out a wish list without a lot of intimate knowledge of detail about such a massive and complex undertaking.
Mike, Irene Dieter would be a good person to ask about the exact sequence of the parking study. She pursued the Elk’s plan to the end. The fact is that the original Long’s site would have meant a larger square foot area of ugly parking garage but not such a narrow, tall and overbearing structure. It might have been able to have a drop gate and avoided the rather poor ticket system employed now. The street level was supposed to house a new Long’s retail avoiding looking into a garage at street level.
That plan was by far the preferred solution, but when Long’s pulled out I think that the process was lost to the public. Even though there were many practical reasons to consider the Elk’s solution, I knew from experiences going to theaters like the Orinda that the construction lender for the cineplex wants to see that parking as close as possible for we the lazy public.
Yesterday while driving to see a foreign film at the Elmwood I noticed the flow of people likes ants to and from the theater and garage, just the way they envisioned it.
some anecdotes: I parked in the garage once on a slow night with few cars and felt that in our Toyota mini-van with horrible steering radius that I would avoid parking there at least in that vehicle. My neighbor went to a Wednesday matinee this week and the show was literally a half hour late staring and had SEVEN interruptions in the projection. He said somebody kept yelling to demand union projectionists. No offers of refund were made. A union conspiracy? Ask DK. Anyhow, as a result of the delay he got a thirty dollar parking ticket. I suggested he demand the city forgive the ticket but he mailed them the $30.
Comment by Mark Irons — June 1, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
45
“Anyhow, as a result of the delay he got a thirty dollar parking ticket. I suggested he demand the city forgive the ticket but he mailed them the $30.”
That’s what he gets for not parking in the garage.
Comment by Jack Richard — June 1, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
As we reach the end of another summer I look forward to seeing how well our new theater did as compared to staff projections (Get the pun?)
It will be an opportunity to see the quality of our projectionists. (Again)
How soon do you think the Summer attendance tally’s will be made public? Do you think the theater has had 100,000 customers this “opening” summer?
(See report @ http://www.ci.alameda.ca.us/archive/2008/attachments/cc_sub_907.pdf )
DISCUSSION
The Movie Theater/Cineplex project is anticipated to generate a significant amount of new vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the vicinity of the project. Annual attendance projections from the developer of the soon to be opened Alameda Theatre Cineplex are estimated to be between 350,000 and 400,000 customers. The summer months (May through August) will represent about 60% of that attendance, with weekends (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) representing about 65% of the total weekly attendance. Average weekly attendance is estimated to range between 5,000 and 14,000. The theater is expected to draw most of its customers from within the City of Alameda; however, there is the potential for the complex to become a regional entertainment destination.
Comment by popcorn counter — August 29, 2008 @ 12:50 am
To counter the staff projections how about popping some of your own.
Comment by Jack Richard — August 29, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
Jack 46,
This is REAL old and mundane business, but the parking ticket was acquired at the garage which I think is part of the irony of the anecdote.
As I understood from my neighbor the system used at the garage is like on Oakland streets where you buy a block of time and put a receipt on your dashboard. Unlike pumping a meter one must return to the vehicle to post the receipt and you also cannot extend your time by adding fare as in a meter. Receipts generate time purchased from the time of purchase, so if you buy an hour and return after 40 minutes to buy more parking time you have to repurchase twenty minutes already on the first receipt or return on the hour.
The logistics of the small garage access precludes a standard system of issuing a ticket on entry and having a drop gate at the exit.
Comment by Mark Irons — August 29, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
Mark # 49 Wow! So, if you outstay your time on the receipt, you get hit with a $30 parking ticket? That’s a stupid system.
Comment by Jack Richard — August 29, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
So the better option is to park on the street, so if you want to extend your parking stay, you don’t have to pay double for the time still unused.
Perhaps the best option is to shop at the expanded South Shore as supported by PSBA. The parking is free there. And since PSBA supported the expansion, I’m sure all the Park St merchants agree that Alameda shoppers should take advantage of the free parking at the mall and keep Park Street “walkable.”
Comment by driver dan hates tix — August 29, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
#48 My popcorn doesn’t repay Conner’s debt to the City.
C’mon I can’t be the only one to wonder how successful this venture has been in fianancial terms.
If staff can’t project accuratly, would anybody trust them with traffic plans, or development studies?
This isn’t just talk at the popcorn counter, the bean counters want to know too.
Comment by bean counter — August 29, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
Bean counters aren’t always accurate either.
Comment by Jack Richard — August 30, 2008 @ 9:27 am
When they are spending our City’s money it is important to have accountability, yes?
We should be informed how our investment is working, how close our city staff projections came to reality. I will stipulate that such projections are nothing more than educated guesses, but since we are banking on these guesses it will be interesting to see how close the forecast came to reality.
Comment by magical fruit sales — August 30, 2008 @ 1:52 pm