The Palace Theatre (Photo by Howard Sherman)

Early last week, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Committee gave its blessing to a plan to elevate Broadway’s famed Palace Theatre by 29ft in order to make way for street-level and below-ground retail in the heart of Times Square and to redevelop the hotel that already rises above the venue.

There are still several hurdles for the plan to clear before it’s a completely done deal, but a timetable setting out the project’s completion by the end of 2019 was also announced, in a report that first appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

The Palace is a fabled location, less as a legitimate theatre venue than for its origins as a premier vaudeville house. To ‘play the Palace’ means to have truly arrived in showbusiness terms.

Judy Garland famously performed there multiple times in the 1950s and 1960s, as did other name performers such as Danny Kaye and Jerry Lewis. Since it was bought by the Nederlander Organization in 1965, the Palace has been home to such theatrical hits as the original productions of Sweet Charity, Applause, La Cage aux Folles, The Will Rogers Follies and the current production of An American in Paris.

Like any theatre, it has also had its share of flops, including the musical Cyrano, a version of Frankenstein that I loved as a teen, and (amusingly) both Henry, Sweet Henry and Home Sweet Homer.

It’s important to note that while the interior of the Palace is landmarked, and therefore must be preserved, the exterior is not. Giant signage adorns the outside. Because the theatre is accessed via a lengthy entryway, its street-level frontage on Seventh Avenue is quite limited, sandwiched between the hotel entry on one side and a change bureau and a McDonalds on the other.

Opposition to the plan, citing the Palace’s historic and iconic status, remains, and it will likely grow louder as the final regulatory steps are taken. While I certainly want to see the theatre preserved, and by regulation it must be, I’m not joining the chorus of those who oppose the venue’s potentially elevated status.

This is because the project – driven first and foremost by commerce, I know – has the potential to rethink aspects of the theatregoing experience for the next century.

As Broadway theatres have begun to pass the 100-year mark, it’s impossible not to wonder how these tourist draws will fare over the long term. As ticket prices continue to rise and make Broadway into an increasingly luxury brand, the beloved but antique interiors may seem increasingly problematic to patrons: steep staircases, small lobbies and tight bathrooms come quickly to mind. This holds true for backstage as well, since the theatres weren’t conceived with modern technology in mind.

The Palace project has the potential to alleviate some of the front-of-house frustrations and make the Broadway theatregoing experience more consistent with that one might find at venues less than half its age. With new venues such as the Culture Shed, the performance spaces at Pier 55 and, maybe one day, the Ground Zero Arts centre on the horizon in New York, the patron experience on Broadway may stand in even sharper relief. Those of us who love the connection to days of theatre past may be willing to overlook some of the inconveniences that come with historic venues, but one cannot help but wonder about subsequent generations, and theatres shouldn’t become deterrents to seeing productions.

The Palace plans outline significant new space for audience and pre-show events, more akin to one what might find at newly built regional houses, as well as more support space backstage. I trust there will be new bathrooms. While great care must be taken with the jacking-up of the theatre, there is also a significant photographic record to guide replication should any pieces be inadvertently damaged in the process.

While exterior landmarking and past air-rights sales will likely prevent the same process from occurring at many other Broadway houses, the Palace may yet prove itself to be a new model of retaining the very best of our historic theatres while adapting to a newer era of entertainment and audience expectation.

There is risk, to be sure, but there’s also potential. If the view of the stage from my seat remains unchanged whether I’m at street level (in the stalls) or 29ft above it, if the beauty of the hall is preserved, then the lifting of the Palace isn’t going to get much of a rise out of me.

This essay originally appeared in The Stage.

Penn & Teller (photo by Joan Marcus)

For the week ending July 19, almost at summer’s halfway point, there were 29 shows on Broadway, meaning 11 theatres were dark. To be sure, some of those only became vacant a few weeks ago. Owners of empty theatres may be taking this downtime for some necessary repair and deep cleaning, impossible while a show is running. There are marquees in and around Times Square already advertising their next tenants.

That said, it always seems a bit counterintuitive that more than a quarter of the 40 Broadway theatres are usually dark during the summer, when New York is flooded with tourists. It seems an unfortunate time for a cyclical contraction (often matched in January and early February).

Illusionists Penn and Teller have a short-term run at the Marquis Theatre, their first New York gig in 15 years. While they’ve been in residence in Las Vegas and making television shows, they’ve clearly built up great interest, because this two-man (and one female assistant) show is doing very solid business, grossing more than $1.2 million in the week examined, even at 80% houses at the Marquis Theatre.

The Marquis was also home to another short-term booking in late 2014, when The Illusionists did comparably well, including a week over the New Year holiday when the gross leapt up to $2.2 million. Magic? I think not. They’ll be back in November.

While I don’t want to see Broadway houses turned into Vegas showcases and concert halls as a rule, these shows’ success suggests that during gaps in Broadway theatre schedules it could be very lucrative to bring in shows and acts that are touring, or small enough to be mounted for genuinely limited runs, akin to An Act of God, which has just ended at Studio 54.

You might remember Judy Garland’s last stands at the Palace in the 1960s, or Lena Horne’s triumph at the Nederlander in the 1980s – Broadway costs have made this type of event much rarer now. Yet, just as American television has revived the idea of summer replacement series, instead of leaving new programming to cable, perhaps it’s time to revisit summer entertainments on Broadway and Off-Broadway. I see some regional theatres using this tactic, since the real estate (an ugly way to describe our beloved theatres, I know) is otherwise just sitting there, not making money for anyone.

Many Broadway musical performers have acts they perform around the country with symphonies. But maybe during the summer, a few of those concerts could take up residence here in New York, both to capitalize on the tourist trade and give us locals a chance to savor more from our greatest talents, in the venues where they made their names.

Or maybe, just maybe, people will buck the conventional wisdom, as the musical Hamilton is, and open full shows in the summer, instead of during the October to April season. After all, it worked out pretty well for A Chorus Line, Avenue Q and Hairspray.

This column originally appeared in The Stage newspaper.