After reading through this thread, I would like to make some points that I
think are important.
Most acts that would (come close to, or) sell out the seats at The State
require a larger or more updated back stage facility and/or a larger
performance stage. They simply will not book there. I see this as the biggest
problem. Add to that, extremely high operating cost, maintenance costs that are
impossible to keep up with (roofing, heating, lighting, crumbling plaster,
deteriorating carpet, plumbing...). Keep in mind, if they could book the acts
with a bigger draw, they might be able to better keep up with all of the
deferred maintenance. When I hear someone say that this building can be fixed
for a lot less money than building a new one, I am not sure they are aware of
the problems and the cost of fixing them. Do YOU know how much it would cost to
shore up the foundation of a building like that? Do you know that they are
using Christmas style rope lighting in areas rather than repairing the
uplighting? Do you know that they are using bottom line vanity light fixtures
rather than commercial wall sconces? Have you seen the plaster crumbling off
the walls? The list is very long.
You cannot compare the State Theater building with the City Hall buildings.
The Mabel Tainter IS a fine example of Romanesque architecture...and what style
of architecture is the State Theater a fine example of?
Things change. As a little girl, I loved the Deco incarnation of the building
with the streamlined Greyhounds pulling in from Farwell.
If the theatrical acts move to a new venue, the current building, as it stands,
would be a perfect place for another church or a punk/headbanger club. These
are a couple uses I would fight tooth and nail. We already have too many church
buildings taking up space that should be used for commerce in our Business
District.
If someone wants to buy it without putting in the many millions of dollars it
requires for operations and maintenance, I would rather see it torn down.