Re: [UC] "Penn wanted us out" from today's DP (one of two related stories)

[William H. Magill]

On 27 Jan, 2005, at 10:53, L a s e r B e a m ® wrote:
Kyle Cassidy wrote:
I don't know why they didn't just switch to showing art films
or why the bridge didn't begin showing art films...
The correct question here is "Why did Robert Redford refuse to put up  
any money so that the Art films he promised his Sundance Cinema would  
show, would be shown?"

The answers to all three are the same ... economics.
The Philadelphia market can only support so many "art houses." And it's  
full.

Art films are anything but cheap for the promoter to show ... if they  
were, you'd see them in many, many more places - from the Rotunda to  
the Crossroads. They may not cost as much to rent as a "hollywood  
budget-buster" but they still cost more than the films you can (or at  
least could) rent from the Free Library.

To cover the cost of the film "rental," the theater operator needs to  
fill a certain number of seats during the film's run.

To cover the costs of the theater -- rent/mortgage, utilities, salaries  
for the projectionist, "sanitation engineer," etc. -- requires a  
certain number of seats be filled "every month."

Art films rarely attract either a large audience or a consistent  
audience. While it may be possible for a theater operator to cover the  
cost of the film rental during its run, the probability of being able  
to cover the theater's operating costs is almost nil. That's one reason  
why virtually every movie house has a significant concession stand that  
charges exorbitant prices and prohibits you from bringing in "stuff"  
from outside. Most theater operators make far more money on concessions  
than they make on admission tickets.

The reason that Art films show in "Art theaters," which tend to be "old  
movie houses" in run-down areas of a community that nobody wants, and  
are run by one person who sells the tickets and shows the film, is  
cost. A "market rate" rent is deadly to an "Art theater."

The Ritz is an exception for a number of reasons. Principally, they own  
the buildings.

Ritz Theaters (in Phila and NJ) are owned by Posel Management, a  
Philadelphia-based commercial real estate developer, who has both deep  
pockets and a sophisticated knowledge of "costs."
 http://www.poselmanagement.com/
They have been trying to develop the parcel in the 1900 block of Walnut  
(Rittenhouse Square) for a number of years now:
"Blueprints for the Ritz at Rittenhouse Square were first introduced in  
1999. Plans call for a theater with eight screens, a 12,000-square-foot  
restaurant, 6,000 square feet of retail space and a parking garage with  
500 spaces."
http://philadelphia.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2004/11/15/ 
story5.html

Since the resident's of Rittenhouse Square don't want the development,  
perhaps folks could convince Posel that the Demographics of University  
City are much more appealing. Of course, the costs are probably not.

T.T.F.N.
William H. Magill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] "Penn wanted us out" from today's DP (one of two related stories)

[L a s e r B e a m ®]

Kyle Cassidy wrote:
I don't know why they didn't just switch to showing art films

or why the bridge didn't begin showing art films...
.
laserbeam®
[aka ray]
back in the day, cinemagic devoted one of its 3 screens to 
repertory cinema...
























You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] "Penn wanted us out" from today's DP (one of two related stories)

[Krfapt]

In a message dated 1/27/2005 9:54:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And what 
  landlord out there on this list would let a tenant  be 100K in 
  arrears?

A .landlord whose decisions are made by people to whom money is just a 
bunch of numbers on a piece of paper or computer screen -- as opposed to a 
medium of exchange earned by the sweat of one's brow. 
 
Al 
Krigman(Left of Ivan Groznyj)

RE: [UC] "Penn wanted us out" from today's DP (one of two related stories)

[Dubin, Elisabeth]

Title: RE: [UC] "Penn wanted us out" from today's DP (one of two related stories)




 > I don't know why they didn't just 
switch to showing art films 
Brilliant.  But 
they'd need new ownership and a new vision, so good thing Penn's kicking their 
sorry selves out.  I hate that place.  The one time I went there it 
was -10 degrees inside.

RE: [UC] "Penn wanted us out" from today's DP (one of two related stories)

[Kyle Cassidy]

Title: RE: [UC] "Penn wanted us out" from today's DP (one of two related stories)





The article didn't say specifically that they were $100,000 in arrears, it left me wondering if they'd been "late" on rent that totalled $100,000 over a peroid of time.

I don't know why they didn't just switch to showing art films


>I'm not surprised they have trouble paying the rent, when they obviously 
>have trouble collecting admission fees. And what landlord out there on this 
>list would let a tenant  be 100K in arrears?

Re: [UC] "Penn wanted us out" from today's DP (one of two related stories)

[Fred Wolfe]

At 08:35 AM 1/27/2005 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Theater owner: Penn wanted us out for years
University says cinema owes approx. $100,000 in late rental payments
By danielle perlman
January 27, 2005
"It is a seasonal business ... every business deals with that in 
University City," Sheppard said. "But we deal with it more based on the 
time of the year the pictures come out from the studios. ... There are 
highs and lows throughout the year and it's always been that way and they 
understood that from day one."
Over the last Thanksgiving weekend, I thought I'd give Cinemagic another 
chance, they were showing "National Treasure", and a family member visiting 
us from out of town wanted to see it. The show was scheduled to start at 
1:15pm. We got there exactly one minute after the show was scheduled to 
start. There wasn't a single employee to be found. No one in the ticket 
booth, no one behind the refreshment counter. We could have just walked 
into the theater and sat down.

After a lot of looking, we found a door behind the snack counter with a 
person behind it. They said the ticket person would be right back. We went 
back to the ticket booth. We stood and  waited FIVE minutes while the movie 
was showing in the theater closest to the booth. Meanwhile, the person at 
the snack counter just stared at us. I asked if we could go in, and pay on 
our way out. They just shook their head no. Other people were also waiting 
in line by then. One said he went to the theater all the time, and that the 
booth was often empty.

When the ticket person finally came back to the booth, she begrudgingly 
took our money, and never uttered a word. No "Sorry you had to wait" or 
"thanks for coming to Cinemagic" or anything else. Nada. Zip. We thanked 
her profusely for taking our money and giving us our tickets, and she still 
didn't respond.

I swore then and there never to step foot in the place again.
I'm not surprised they have trouble paying the rent, when they obviously 
have trouble collecting admission fees. And what landlord out there on this 
list would let a tenant  be 100K in arrears?

Fred Wolfe


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.