The Moving picture world (January 1924-February 1924)

Better equipment CONDUCTED B^V E. T. KEYSER Thirty Days Extension on Code Hearings Deman ded by Exhibitors PROPOSED changes in the Building Code of New York State, so drastic in many instances that owners of motion picture theatres declare that their enforcement would put hundreds of smaller houses absolutely out of business and entail an expenditure running into vast sums at large houses, were explained last week at hearings held by the State Industrial Board in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany and New York City. In practically all places motion picture exhibitors and theatre owners demanded an extension of thirty days in order to become better acquainted with the provisions of the law as well as to file briefs and suggestions. Few theatre owners in New York State apparently realize the danger that exists through the possible adoption of the proposed state standard building code. It was said, however, at the close of the week's hearings that there wa? absolutely no possibility of the code being adopted in its present form. Two years ago a law was passed in New York State authorizing the Industrial Board to prepare a code for betterment of fire exits and to safeguard those attending theatres and public amusements. This law followed the disaster at one of the Washington, D. C, houses. Roy Smith Acted as Spokesman The hearing in Albany was held at the State Capitol February 7. Roy Smith, secretary of the Albany Chamber of Commerce, acted as spokesman for a group of theatre owners, which included Oscar Perrin, of the Leland and the Clinton Square theatres ; George Roberts, manager of the Colonial Theatre, and president of the local motion picture theatre owners' association ; C. H. Buckley, owner of the Leland and Clinton Square theatres ; Uly S. Hill, managing-director of the Mark Strand in Albany, and the Troy in Troy. At the close of the hearing, which lasted for about two hours, one of the exhibitors declared that the provisions of the new code were absolutely ridiculous in many respects, while another was heard to remark that the present code was drastic enough, and that there was no need of imposing additional hardships and expense on the theatres of New York State just as they were getting on their feet. "If these provisions were lived up to," said one exhibitor, "it would put hundreds of the smaller houses out of business and would cost others such a pretty penny that they might just as well close up. There are some changes proposed that are absolutely out of the question. The code applies to the most modern houses, and would require certain changes even in these places." In Albany the theatre owners are planning to co-operate with the Chamber of Commerce, and a meeting will be called in the near future to more carefully outline some plan of action. At the Buffalo hearing, held February 4, George E. Eichenlaub, the theatre architect, whose warning appeared in our issue of February 9, evidently went so far as to actually read the whole document regardless of the time it took to do so. When he took the floor his copy of the code was so covered with notes that he hesitated to start with his suggestions. He opened with: "With due respect to the board, etc., I feel that the code should not be discussed farther. It is useless, futile, and a mere copy of other laws that have failed in practice. "I would recommend that you take a fresh start and write a short — not to exceed five pages — document that will direct an owner to use competent advice and furnish him with a list of state registered architects and engineers ; then, for the benefit of the architects, direct Read the Comments of JOHN J. ZINK on page 680 them as to minimum requirements as to exits, aisle widths, floor slopes, step heights and seat spacing. (Pennsylvania covers these factors in seven pages, and is working out very good, barring only a few items.) Cover the Engineer "Then cover the engineer as to construction somewhat as follows : He is to make the structural design, and, on completion of the building, he is to file an affidavit that the building is constructed in accordance with his design and in his opinion is good for a certain term of years (depending on the construction). At the end of this time the state is to notify the owner that he is to have a registered engineer inspect the work and make such repairs as the deterioration of the structure would make necessary, after which he would file a further affidavit that the structure is good for another period of years, and so repeat during the life of the structure. Make Engineer Responsible "If the structure develops weakness before the time set then the engineer is to be responsible and pay the damages incident to making the structure good, and suffer the loss of his right to practice under the law; if the structure falls with loss of life then the engineer is to be imprisoned in addition." About this time the board informed Mr. Eichenlaub that it had no power to make law, and the discussion must be confined to the paper as written. Mr. Eichenlaub then brought out the fact that the section regarding concrete construction was antiquated and was not in accord with modern practice. Mr. Skaer, of the Corr-bar Co., and a prominent engineer, corroborated this statement, and went into detail, showing why this was so. Restriction of Progress The steel section was then attacked and shown to be wanting in certain requirements as tending to restrict progress in the arts of construction through no provision to recognize cheaper or better methods of accomplishment, which proved a point in favor of Eichenlaub's suggestion. The meeting was not very well attended, and most of the discussion revolved about existing buildings which are deficient in one or many directions. Not much information was to be gained, as the board had no authority and thought best to play "safe." Amendment of Ohio Code • Since this meeting information is at hand that a similar code in Ohio, which has been in operation for the past twelve years, and has almost entirely stopped smaller town theatre construction, though permitting existing fire-traps to exist as a menace, has recently been amended so that a new commission is established which has power to modify the provisions of the code. The film exchanges, the theatre owners and others interested must get busy right now. After this code becomes a law, to change it will be impossible, and will require fifty times the energy and money to even get a concession. The smaller houses are the backbone of the industry, and if these are compelled to pay less for their pictures and still charge double for admissions the effect on the business will at least be felt. The time to act is now, and it is to be hoped that a concerted movement will be made and some interest shown. George Cohen Was Lonesome At the hearing held at the headquarters of the Department of Labor, State of New York, 120 East Twenty-eighth Street, on Friday morning, February 11, f.o representative of any theatre owners' or film organizations were present. The sole exhibitor who attended the meeting was George Cohen, of the George Cohen Theatrical Enterprises, which operates five picture houses — the Strand, the Rialto and the Best of Poughkeepsie and Cohen's Opera House and the Star of Newburgh. Mr. Cohen evidently came prepared to shoot the proposed code full of holes verbally. On learning, however, that written protests received within thirty days from the date of hearing would be given consideration he made known his intention of filing a written protest within that time.