Motion Picture News (Nov - Dec 1926)

1974 M o tion Picture N e iv s How Much Should Theatres Cost? Engineer Says Deciding Factor is Degree of Attraction; Also Warns Against Over-design in Remote Locations BY H. ROBINS BURROUGHS, CONSULTING ENGINEER Tlll'l question is frequently asked: "How much does it cost to build a theatre, having a certain number of seats?" There seems to be no definite answer to this question. A number of engineers, architects ami builders attempt to place a price per seat in order to establish the cost of any proposed job. Recent developments along lines of theatre construction show that the cost of theatre construction is gradually on the increase, due not materially by reason of the cost increase in materials and labor, but due to the amount of stuff thai is now being put in a theatre. For example, it is reported that the new Ambassador Theatre in St. Louis, cost $3,650,000, and it. has a -eating capacity of ;. seats, or a eosl of $1,216 per seat. This cost, plus the eosl of the property, would probably bring the total investment in the neighborhood of $5,500,000, as is reported. Is the Cost Justified? The question then arises, can an investment of this magnitude be justified in a theatre of that seating capacity? The answer to this question may be yes or no, according to the point of view of the investor. From the commercial point of view the answer would probably be no, and from an advertising point of view the answer might be yes. In general, however, the answer certainly would be no, and this serves to illustrate the degree of expansion to which motion picture theatre builders are advancing. The writer is of the opinion th.it a halt will soon be called, but probably not until an enormous amount of money has been invested and wasted. The theatre-building industry of today 1 reaching such inflated stages that a rupture will surely occur in the course of time. It only remains to be seen how long it will take to reach the breaking point. An analogy may be found in the late Florida realty situation. A warning has been sounded. Let the wise profit by the failure of oi hers. It is, of course, only human nature to wish tor something attractive and beautiful, but to be carried away with such an idea is what usually does the damage to the project from a financial point of view. It m:i\ be argued that an elaborate display on the interior produces business and the expenditures, therefore, are reflected in the i„,\ offi< i re< eipt 1 bis may be entirely to a certain degree, but right there is where the analysis fails. The percentages involved are too small. The patrons of motion pictures in general do not go to see the interior decoration-, of a theatre more than or r two time-. The show is the attraction and it makes little difference, comparative^ speakin 'her a good -i,,,u , played in a $1,000,000 theatre or in a $5, ,000 theatre. The receipts will l„. approximately the 3ame. Tin has been demonstrated many time-. The argumenl mighl be advanced thai. ulih an attractive interior in a theatre, the , ,, | 0f production of the show or pictures City officials of New Orleans chose the New Samger Theatre for Navy Day flag raising (story on page 1979) could be reduced. In other words, a second-class show could be put over in a firstclass theatre and get away with it. That might be done occasionally, but certainly it would not work out in the long run. The writer has very clearly in mind an analogy of a small town of approximately 10,000 in which there was one second-class theatre containing approximately 1,000 seats. A new theatre was built in this town, containing approximately 1,500 seats, at a cost of over $300,000. The results show that the people of this town went to see the new theatre only a few times after which they were attracted by the shows, and the -mailer house, by putting on the better show's, did the business. The same reasoning applies throughout the entire motion picture industry to a greater or lesser degree and the sooner this is realized by builders, the better it will be for the owners of t heatres in general. Something New, Today's Keyword There seems to be a continuous scramble for something new in the way of design and construction of theatres. Originality. something different, no matter what it may be, seems to be the key-word of today, and the result is that, while there are a number of beautiful and attractive high-class theatres being built, there are others which are being ruined by the effort and desire to do something different. It is obvious from the foregoing that to determine in advance tin co-t of any project is practically an impossibility unless the amount to be expended is limited. Usually the cart is placed before the horse. Instead of an owner asking his engineer or architect how much a certain building will cost, his architect or engineer usually asks him how much money does he want to spend, not how much can he afford to spend. With a few rare exceptions, theatre construction of today should be placed on a commercial basis; that is, the amount of expenditure involved should depend on the returns on the investment. Right there is where the difficulty arises, to determine the amount of returns on investment, the thought being that, by spending $50,000 additional on the interior, the box office receipts will be proportionately increased and in greater proportion than if this expenditure were eliminated. Therein lies a fallacy and only time will tell how unsound this policy is. A sieve will not hold water, nor will any scheme or policy which is equally full of holes. Competition Breeds Extravagance Theatre design throughout the country is being carried away with this extravagant idea to such an extent that it is becoming a matter of competition. One theatre OAvner builds an expensive house and his competitor is obliged to go him one better in order to compete, so that the race is on to outdo. The increase in cost is not only due to the interior architectural design, but also it is being reflected in electrical display and other means of attraction. Whereas for an average theatre, the electrical contract in the past amounted to $30,000 to $40,000, today $75,000 to $100,000 are being spent for the same theatre. Ornamental plaster work is also being increased one hundred per cent. This increase, of course, is not due to increased cost of labor and material, as stated before, but is due to the extravagant display which is being involved. There are, however, certain legitimate additions in cost, such as refrigeration, etc., which are well worth while. The principal subject of discussion in this article is certainly the degree of extravagance which is being constantly introduced in t heatre design. Another source of error in theatre construction is the overdesign of locations; that is, a certain location can only do so much business due to its surrounding environment or particular strategic location. Consequently, it would be a mistake to spend, as an illustration, $1,000,000 on any given theatre location when half that amount would do approximately the same amount of business. Frequently, expensive theatres are built in inexpensive neighborhoods and the error is not always obvious either to the layman or to the expert owner for the reason that it is impossible to tell the exact difference in the actual income and the potential income of a house of a less expensive type. It is, however, {Continued on page 1977)