Black box space on Broadway- Page 3

[Melissa25]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 10:13pm

Yes economics indeed. Which is why the City of NY needs to invest in space for the arts to fuel our economy.
Are the urban planners negotiating any air space in exchange for performance space to be built?

I dream of seeing a City Center II as part of the Hudson Yards redevelopment.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 10:35pm

Melissa, agreed. There are, of course, a bunch of theatres in the 42nd corridor (and elsewhere in midtown west) that are parts of development deals that included theatres, and there are also air rights transfers galore involving broadway theatres. Not all of these things are non-controverial, but I also think the Hudson Yards area will become a destination for theatres eventually. Funny that the ill-fated 37 Arts complex may end up being at the center of a new universe, a decade or so too late for its original producer-developers.

[Melissa25]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 10:51pm

Yes Hero, it is ironic about the 37 Arts complex. It's where I saw "In The Heights" before it transferred and won the Tony.

The plans to extend the 7 line subway to the Hudson Yards can really help a "Broadway West" idea.

[temms]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 10:52pm

One of the things I dislike most about the board is the way users assume they know what other users do and do not know about. I don't want to get into it, but I am in fact very familiar with Broadway economics and budgets, and I freely admit what I do and do not know. The people I've talked to that have pooh-poohed this idea have not been serious business people, just acquaintances I've sat around playing what-ifs with.

Where is this extraordinary extra expense you're talking about (you say it would equal the cost of 10 shows)? Rental on a Broadway house is usually going to be around 6% of the gross - if you have a show doing $800K in gross, that's $48K a week, a bit more than $200K a month, and around $2.5M a year. I honestly have no remote clue about midtown Manhattan commercial real estate rental prices. How much was the monthly lease for the Virgin Megastore spacem for instance? I ask honestly - was it more than $200K? If so, then I begin to see where this model falls apart. It doesn't have to be its own building - as long as there were sufficient public access where you could efficiently traffic 1000-odd patrons in and out in a safe and timely fashion, it could be anywhere in the League-defined "grid".

And I've worked in spaces similar to what I'm talking about so I've seen spaces transformed. I did and saw multiple things at the Zipper Theatre, which was literally an old zipper factory with mostly old car seats (which were surprisingly comfortable.) The Head Theatre at Centerstage Baltimore is an open space that can be reconfigured season to season, and I've done both a big proscenium-style musical with 500 seats, and also a 300-seat thrust configuration. What about those types of models can't be scaled up for a Broadway-sized project?

A Broadway theatre comes equipped with very little - you're renting all your lighting and sound gear anyway. Obviously installing some kind of complicated flying/trap system will probably be prohibitive, but a show with that kind of scenic requirement wouldn't be the right fit for this model anyway.

They reconstructed the frickin' RSC space at the Park Avenue Armory, and what I'm picturing is way less ornate than that. Any automation means you're going to be building a second deck and bringing in all the winches and motors, anyway. What difference does it make whether it goes onto the floor of an existing Broadway stage or somewhere else?

Yes, it will require extra money up front for conversion, but how is that so different from a Broadway show with a super-complex physical production? Can't it be figured into the set budget and the take-in? Let's say Hal Prince wanted to revive "Candide" in its environmental staging. Why not at a space like Roseland? Where does the economic model break down? Again, I ask honestly. I'm not seeing it. How does it inflate the weekly breakeven beyond the point where you can make your nut? How does it inflate the preproduction to such an extent that recoupment becomes impossible? How does it significantly scale back your potential gross? I don't see where the numbers are so wildly out-of-step with a typical production, they're just allocated a bit differently.

This all reminds me of the threads that pop up from time to time where people ask why all the midweek matinees are on Wednesday, and wouldn't it make sense to spread them out over the week? Those threads are filled with millions of reasons why it would never, ever work (even though it does in London). And, of course, there are now provisions in the Equity contracts to allow for Friday matinees and 6-show weekends, and several shows are starting Thursday matinees next year. But according to the BWW braintrust, that cannot and will not ever happen.

I just finished reading the Joseph Papp/Public Theatre Oral History and lots of people told him that what he was doing was impossible, too. I'd love to see Broadway burst beyond of the proscenium model and I don't see why it can't be done by bold, creative thinkers.

[ARTc3]

Posted: 12/18/13 at 11:26pm

temms... wow! Thank you so much for finding those Dude photos. I remember Dude and Candide, and I remember how fascinated I was with both of them, and how magical they both were to me. That was many years ago.

HogansHero... So, your financial argument is based on the potential profitability of a small vs. larger capacity venue, and therefore your belief that new theater spaces will generally be larger? Am I understanding your argument?

If so, this doesn't seem to be as much an issue about proscenium vs flexible seating as it is about contracts with the theater owners and unions. We still have The Helen Hayes and the smaller houses. Surely, they can't only survive on the naive producer?

From your exchange with Melissa25, I gather you believe there will be new theater spaces. That's exciting and optimistic. Perhaps, within the world of one of these new spaces will emerge a new not-for-profit, and/or cultural center with a different economic model. Maybe even with the prestige of a "Broadway theatre". Who knows?

* * *

I didn't start this thread just to express my disappointment that HERE LIES LOVE and its particular economics means that it is an unlikely transfer. (Personally, I think with a working bar, the economics might have been more positive than feared.) For me, it really is about immersive / environmental theater.

Which takes me back to how much I truly appreciate the photos of Dude. It was a mess. And, Candide was uncomfortable, but wow were they different and fun and exciting.

I want some more!

Updated On: 12/18/13 at 11:26 PM

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/19/13 at 12:16am

Temms--I'm not even sure we are talking about the same thing. Artc3 wants immersive theatre on Broadway, but you are talking about the Zipper and the scaling up the Head which is something else completely. Honestly, there's too much flux in what you're saying (remember those enterprising producers? I really don't know how to respond. Broadway theatres cannot be opened like popups in empty stores, but in any event the rent around the old Virgin store is about $1200-1500 a square foot, and that's triple net. You'd be talking about removing floors and heaven knows how you deal with the columns. (Broadway audiences don't fancy them.) We are not talking a load in, we are talking many many millions of dollars. (Think Spider-Man and keep going.)The basic problem with everything you're saying is, and I am not trying to insult you, naive. These serious people you haven't spoken to? Where are they? Why aren't they putting up these shows at Manhattan Center where there are no fixed seats?

Artc3--I think the problem is divergence. I don't want to see Here Lies Love with 1200 people. That's no longer immersive, it's standing on Times Square during rush hour. Think Fuerza Bruta and start multiplying. So a theatre owner and a producer want big, and the show wants small. It's not a contract issue. The Helen Hayes (except for the current special situation), the Booth, the Lyceum, etc--they hold small shows, but you want big shows set in an immersive environment.

I understand your disappointment re HLL, but I don't think a new Broadway theatre is, or ever would be, the solution. If we see it again, I think it'll be out of the theatre district. I do think there will be new spaces, and I also think that a non profit could well build a convertible/flexible space. There are, of course, several of those around town, but not in the commercial world.

[temms]

Posted: 12/19/13 at 12:54am

I don't deny that it's a little naive - I'm definitely working more from theory than actual practice. And I think we're probably not thinking about exactly the same thing. I've just seen conversions of spaces done all over the place (including Broadway - I got to wander around the Nederlander while they were ripping it out pre-Newsies) and I'm imagining that at some point, there will be a convergance of available space and a production looking to do something, and once it's done a precedent will have been set. Again, I think about the RSC/Armory project and the tents which means it is logistically possible. I frankly think there's too much "we do it this way because this is the way we do it"-ism on Broadway, and I'm just spitballing because I think there's an opening for large-scale environmental productions that want the Tony-eligibility and the "Broadway" branding. If "King Kong" weren't going into the Hilton/Foxwoods/Depends Theatre after "Spiderman" (can't keep up with that place's name), couldn't it be "restored" to a new configuration since it's such a hellish barn nobody really wants in the first place? There's plenty of space. That's just one idea.

So, we don't see eye-to-eye, and I'm probably underthinking a lot of it, but I do contend that we'll see something in this vein this emerge because the Broadway branding is so valuable.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 12/19/13 at 8:55am

There is a lot of kudos in being a hit show off Broadway, not as much as Broadway, where you have the glamour of being able to compete for a Tony and if you are a hit show the potential to make loads of money is fantastic, but shows do get ruined by moving uptown, think Scottsboro Boys, think Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson, think Lysistrata Jones that could of had respectable runs off Broadway.

Broadway theatre can do things off Broadway theatre can't, mainly due to their superior budgets, but this also works the other way, where off Broadway can do fantastic things Broadway never can and enviromental/immersive theatre, is such a genre of theatre, that works better as a off Broadway venture.

[newintown]

Posted: 12/19/13 at 10:36am

It can be very fun to speculate about these things, but it seems to me that, if anyone saw an economic demand for "experimental" theatre "on" Broadway, they would have made it happen by now.

Personally, I don't think there are enough people who want to see such stuff to make it economically feasible.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/19/13 at 11:39am

Temms, I understand the temptation to bristle at the inherently conservative impulses of Broadway, but it is important to remember that the whole of Broadway is a complicated and (to steal from EA) delicate balance and most folks who show up thinking they can build a better mousetrap end up failing. I think it is good to have these discussions, because from all of them perhaps a kernel of an idea can emerge. But in many cases there are reasons for things, though they are not always obvious. First, Broadway is not an open ended thing-it needs to be finite to function. Second, everything has to be filtered through the real estate market. It's fine to say you could remodel the Foxwoods into a black box, but you can't do that without ripping out the upper tiers and costing yourself a large number of seats. The Beaumont has a thrust stage-it is also a non-profit sitting on essentially free land. You could not afford to build that theatre commercially in the theatre district. Likewise, the Armory-yes it is a cool space, but replicating that in the theatre district would cost more than a billion dollars. (It only exists on the upper east side because it is landmarked (and nonprofit).

I am a very strong proponent of artistic experimentation, and I love many things that are presented in novel ways, whether it is Natasha, Here Lies Love or whatever else. But I am not a strong proponent of trying to fit square pegs in round holes, and sometimes you have to recognize that's what you are doing. There are quite a few places in New York where shows can be mounted in flexible spaces-in addition to the armory, we have/had/will have St Ann's as a major if smaller venue, and the original Black Watch in the original space still stands as one of the most thrilling things I've ever seen anywhere. But it would be a joke on Broadway. Similarly, War Horse had but one option for Broadway, and that was at the Beaumont. Could another non-profit come along and build something more flexible on Broadway? Yes, and I wish that one of the Broadway non-profits had done so. But if you look at the subscriber base of MTC and RTC, creating a black box to do edgy shows is not logical. And it would require a billionaire (literally) to donate the money for it. I agree with you that the Broadway brand is valuable, but that's the reason it is so carefully guarded.

[ARTc3]

Posted: 12/19/13 at 1:01pm

HogansHero... I want to thank you for you posts in this thread. I'd like to believe that some creative accounting and newintown's comment about economics following "demand" might create a space for such productions on Broadway. With the critical success of recent immersive productions and the talk of them transferring, perhaps some clever or well-connected producer might be able to align the numbers.

I do have a question... You have allude to the unique nature of the current resident of The Helen Hayes, Rock of Ages. I am very curious and your understanding of the economics fascinates me. Can you elaborate? I am genuinely interested.

[HogansHero]

Posted: 12/19/13 at 2:00pm

I just meant that it is a show with a non-theatrical demographic, with a juggernaut of different productions feeding it, a fairly shoestring budget (in context) and so on. For whatever combination of reasons, it has been able to sustain itself in the Hayes. I still believe there is a disconnect between the demand you seem to think exists, the prohibitive cost of testing that demand in an actual broadway theatre designed as you would like to see it and any real chance of actualizing this idea. But were it to materialize, I'd happily be in the audience.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 3/28/17 at 12:41am

Was searching for "The Hairy Ape" at the Amory and came across this page. I LOVE this idea, as I love theater that is THEATRICAL. I like when you get a weird staging. That's why I love seeing stuff at the Circle in the Square or anywhere downtown. It's interesting. 

I think a space could work, but you'd need to have a mezz that wraps around the performance space. Like has been said, I don't think Here Lies Love would work with 500+ seats. But it could be adapted to where the "premium tickets" are the ones on the floor, and the mezz seats (the ones not moving around) could be cheaper, etc. 

Sure it's a shot in the dark, but I do wish we had more flexible spaces. Those DUDE photos are awesome. I don't know why they would even do that or how that helped the text, etc. But it's such a cool concept. 

It seems like we're constantly trying to find spaces to make Broadway more intimate - look at Sweat taking the rear mezz out of the Studio 54, but for some reason we keep making bigger and bigger spaces - The Lyric. 

I still wish they'd convert Stage 42/Little Shubert into a Broadway space. It might not be ideal real estate, but it's a small theater - has such great space - and if it's something like Audra McDonald in... people will flock to it no matter where it is, etc.