34 Responses to “I’d prefer to be a gaping hole in the urban fabric”

1. posted by ronni at May 21, 2008 11:31 am [#]:
   

   That’s a terrible idea. I will miss the theater very much.

2. posted by edg at May 21, 2008 1:08 pm [#]:
   

   Do the Wiley’s still own it? Whatever happened to their plan to rehab it? Could the owner comment?

3. posted by kathryn at May 21, 2008 4:02 pm [#]:
   

   I AM KATHRYN WILEY. I AM NOT OBTAINING A DEMOLITION PERMIT FOR THE THEATRE. THE CITY AND I HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS AND WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH OUR PLANS.

   Please, please do not start this rumor, in fact, let’s take this off of the website, if possible.

   This website turns into such a rumor mill that noone can do anything worthwhile without comments from the peanut gallery.

4. posted by Clay Street at May 21, 2008 4:06 pm [#]:
   

   What plans?

   Put the rumors to rest, because as of this moment it does not appear that anything is moving forward at that site.

   It is basically a giant pigeon coop.

5. posted by john_m at May 21, 2008 4:59 pm [#]:
   

   Style Weekly, April 2006:

   “It’s about making a difference.” Lifting her younger son, she says resolutely, “And we want this to be a gathering place.”

6. posted by Cadeho at May 21, 2008 5:38 pm [#]:
   

   Please please please turn it back into a theater! A house that used to be a theater only serves a couple of people while a theater will serve the community. Where else can a theater for the East End go? The West End has two.

7. posted by Daniel at May 21, 2008 6:01 pm [#]:
   

   According to the city’s records the Wiley’s don’t own it anymore and haven’t since December of 2006.

8. posted by cgoblen at May 21, 2008 6:06 pm [#]:
   

   I’d prefer a gaping hole over the public nuisance and dangerous shell that’s there now.

   Oh, and it seems that there might be a story behind this… let’s get the truth.

9. posted by Gray at May 21, 2008 6:26 pm [#]:
   

   Turning the theater into a theater is a wonderful idea…with rising gas prices and the looming doom of enviromental disaster, we need everything right here in our neighborhood including movies. I hate driving out to Short Pump or Chesterfield for a movie… but I think it’s too difficult financially to make such a small theater work.

10. posted by edg at May 22, 2008 8:48 am [#]:
    

    I think I remember a post that Kathryn stated the new owners are her parents.

    I think we all would love it to be a theater. I understand the cost is astronomically, though. But, if it could be done, I really think it would work; especially if it had Saturday Matinees for kids. And maybe have some other multi-purpose use as well, like for dance, drama clubs, or karate even.

    I wonder if there are any historical grants, etc. that could be used towards that effect.

11. posted by Eric S. Huffstutler at May 22, 2008 9:48 am [#]:
    

    Daniel.. according to Wiley she is the daughter of the Johnson’s that show up as the owners. Wiley doesn’t have any say so over this building legally but her parents do, one being on the executive board at MCV. It appears they haven’t responded to requests by the city nor codes people of their intent for years or given any tangible engineering plans as to what they will do so… the codes people have decided to press ahead with demolition (prep file turned over to demolition coordinator yesterday by codes people).

    The Johnson’s were sent a certified letter dated May 11th issuing a notification of deficiencies but must not have replied? The city has to advertise it first which gives the Johnson’s one last shot of legitimately “working with” the city to do something with the building but as they see it as it stands now exceeds criteria for demolition. It isn’t Wiley nor Johnson who is going to tear it down but the city as basically abandoned, dangerous (not in code), and years of not producing any plans for construction.

    BTW.. I noticed a link above to an old article about the theater which mentioned it was not in use as such as far back as 1992. I believe it hasn’t been used as a theater since 1970 but it is a shame that the Johnson’s decided to gut it out removing any aspect of original theatrical grandeur that could have been restored.

    Eric

12. posted by Gray at May 22, 2008 10:31 am [#]:
    

    edg, maybe some, gulp, non profit group could form a performance art, drama, poetry center there. There is great drama and poetry here on the hill. I know I don’t want to see it as a hole.

    *note we don’t want a corporation or business involved that would censor any art –that would take away all the fun.

13. posted by Eric S. Huffstutler at May 22, 2008 1:02 pm [#]:
    

    Wonder why the Richmond Historical Foundation didn’t take an interest in this building before it was gutted and salvage it? Too late now. A facade is all that is left that reminds us what was once there. A hollow shell only with no roof or floors. And don’t see a demolition permit listed online on file which I think was one issue the city brought up to bring the Johnson’s to court about but were “no shows” according to officials. If the Johnson’s have been buying time playing with the city… game is over.

    A little history that possibly our own “Jason” may have submitted at the Cinema Treasures website…

    “…Art Deco theater in downtown Richmond, VA. It opened in 1938 and closed in 1970, and was designed by Henry Carl Messerschmidt, who also was architect of the Lee (now the Grace Street) and Bellevue Theaters in Richmond.”

    It had 1 screen and 850 seats.

    Eric

14. posted by tiny at May 22, 2008 1:13 pm [#]:
    

    Eric, I really have to agree with you on this one. I hope it’s not to late to avoid demolition.

15. posted by Eric S. Huffstutler at May 22, 2008 1:32 pm [#]:
    

    tiny… even if it wasn’t torn down (and the city seems to think it is inevitable and beyond trying to salvage), it would cost at least $2 million just to bring it back to some sort of theater. Think the original intent by the owners was to make it their home rather than business – didn’t work out.

    With only 4 walls and nothing else in-between (or roof or floor for that matter), it would take VERY deep pockets to bring it back and “if” once it was sold, whomever would have to do something immediately.

    Is a 69-year old building with very little to work with worth salvaging? And who would sink that kind of money in the building in that area? BIG gamble.

    Sad but true.

    Eric

16. posted by neighhbor at May 22, 2008 2:31 pm [#]:
    

    The City would not allow this to open as a theater when there is absolutely no off street parking.

17. posted by Gray at May 22, 2008 2:36 pm [#]:
    

    Church Hill has plenty of parking. If parking is an issue, then they should close down City Hall because I had a tough time finding parking down there the other night.

18. posted by Gray at May 22, 2008 2:40 pm [#]:
    

    actually, you’re right about parking for a theater because everyone is there all at once.

19. posted by Eric S. Huffstutler at May 22, 2008 2:46 pm [#]:
    

    And that gets back to invasion of parking for private residents. We who pay taxes should be allowed at least one space in front of our own houses both for convenience and a courtesy and “just because” that is the way it should be.

    And I think there are zoning issues that involve parking for certain types of businesses anyway.

    On the other hand this also gets back to the issue that most all of these older business buildings woven within Church Hill were built during the day when people only had one car per family – if that as man had none and either walked and/or took the trolley or bus to where they wanted to go. I know that one owner family member of the north wing of our house that lived there between 1904-1948 remembers his mother walking to American Tobacco to work every day as they did not have a car – and she felt safe doing so. So… parking wasn’t an issue in those days. Today with everyone wanting a car of their own or two or three, yes, there is a problem.

    Eric

20. posted by Ramzi at May 23, 2008 6:13 pm [#]:
    

    It’s way too small to turn a profit as a theater, not gonna happen. If they tear it down at least you won’t have to walk through pigeon droppings every time you go to the post office.

21. posted by mary anne at May 28, 2008 4:00 pm [#]:
    

    NOTE TO K. WILEY – would you and/or your husband make sure you don’t have something that belongs to me that was being stored in Beckstoffers (a pair of 12″ sidlights from Caravattis that my carpenter stored with my door and transom at the mill) If you can offer any suggestions for finding my sidleights so that i may comeplete my projext, I would truly appreciate a call – 248-8547

22. posted by Eric S. Huffstutler at October 7, 2008 10:54 am [#]:
    

    Kathryn…

    If you are still reading this, please keep us updated about the East End Theater. I understand that engineering plans have been approved but no construction permits applied for and there are parking (zoning) issues again for this building. We know that work is going on with The Robinson Theater you also own but why hasn’t anything been done with The East End Theater which was first in line?

    Eric

23. posted by mary anne at November 14, 2008 5:44 pm [#]:
    

    Eric. . . Don’t count on getting an answer from her. There are quite a few vendors, craftsmen and former buisness partners of the Wiley’s who could answer your question honestly.

    I think their stories would prevent others from entering this type of business agreement or “partnership”.

24. posted by mj at February 13, 2009 4:46 pm [#]:
    

    anyone heard anything about this project?
    It seems to keep going on forever with no progress?

25. posted by vh at February 14, 2009 11:30 pm [#]:
    

    what is up Wileys? help your neighborhood understand?

26. posted by sam at June 4, 2009 3:21 pm [#]:
    

    it appears this property may have been sold by the wileys???
    does anyone know anything about this sad building and it’s possible future??

27. posted by crd at June 4, 2009 5:58 pm [#]:
    

    sam #26, the most recent check I made of the city database was in the last week, and it still belonged to Katherine Wiley’s parents. Look up at posts #10 and 11, above. The ownership subject came up on another thread sometime in the past, and Ms. Wiley herself wrote in to say (on the other thread) that it was in her parent’s name.

    The building looks really awful, I can’t believe it’s still standing. Was at the post office the other day and took a look at it. I’m surprised it has not been demolished.

28. posted by Eric S. Huffstutler at June 5, 2009 10:46 am [#]:
    

    crd

    Not sure what is happening with this building. I was told they were required to put a roof on it a long time ago but never did. Wiley had big plans that fell through and heard there was going to be a Wine/Cheese shop there but that also fell through. The building is nothing but a shell with zero roof and dirt floors – only four brick walls and that is it. Sure, a blank canvas per se with the original facade intact but I have no idea why they would have gutted the building prematurely so no one would be interested in it? That along with no off-street parking on a main street is another issue.

    I would think it fall under Blight? Especially in its condition and how long it has been this way. But getting the city to do anything these days is like pulling hens teeth and all you get is passed from one department to the next, no one knowing what the other is doing and no resolution. With this building I can’t help but feel there is some political undertone here with payola.

    Eric

29. posted by hopeful at June 19, 2009 12:27 pm [#]:
    

    The wonderful NEW street lights are on 25th between Broad and Clay but the OLD theatre that the Wileys are sitting on is still Dark and Crumbling.
    This eyesore is a blight in Churchill.
    I bet if it was South of Broad there would be outcries and action taken.
    The sign is falling into the street and rats are breeding in the vacant lot next to the theatre.

30. posted by sam at June 29, 2009 4:26 pm [#]:
    

    the front of this structure is one of the most dangerous dirty and unsightly in all of churchill.
    100′s of people walk by each day to the postoffice.
    why tell me why does the city not citation these people???
    it is a discrace.

31. posted by unhinged at August 4, 2009 3:14 pm [#]:
    

    I saw someone walk out of the postoffice yesterday take a left down 25th st and cut their leg badly on the gaping metal sticking out of this eyesore the Wileys call a project to be.
    The city should be aware of this blatant disregard for rules and regulations.
    Wait until the sign falls down and kills someone. Does anyone know anyone who can see what the heck is the real story here!!!

32. posted by Mary Anne at August 4, 2009 3:33 pm [#]:
    

    Kathleen Wiley’s mother is on the GRCC. All of the Wiley’s unrealized/incomplete/abandoned projects for which they owed vendors/contractors money were “dismissed” by nearly every judge.(they do have a few judgements against them). Shocking.

33. posted by Eric S. Huffstutler at August 4, 2009 6:04 pm [#]:
    

    I have asked but as usual, the city has turned a blind eye because of greased palms. I passed on the last few of the posts above to two people in the city I usually contact and hoping to find out their response. If this building doesn’t fall under “Spot Blight” then nothing does, considering the history and its condition!

    Eric

34. posted by unhinged at August 17, 2009 6:59 pm [#]:
    

    eric
    have you heard anything back from the folks you contacted about this disgusting eyesore?

Share a Comment