Who knows what the future holds.
Personally I always thought Posel made a big mistake by not buying The Boyd.
Nicole McEwan
>From: "William H. Magill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: "William H. Magill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: University City List <[email protected]>
>Subject: Re: [UC] "Penn wanted us out" from today's DP (one of two related stories)
>Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:11:15 -0500
>
>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
><http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
