Good point.  Especially in smaller towns or smaller urban areas, the space would 
have to do double or triple duty.  In those areas, and even more so in crowded 
urban areas, on-the-street storefront space would have been (and still is) at a 
premium.

In New York City, many of the theatres were in use 6 or even 7 days a week (the 
San Francisco Minstrels gave 8 shows a week throughout the August or September 
to May season), but many theatres closed completely for the summer months, or 
rented their space out to second-level performers for the audiences that 
couldn't afford to flee the heat.

What flummoxed me, I guess, was how they could attract such huge crowds to 
second-floor structures when the danger of fire was fairly common.  I always 
found it hilarious that the first theatre the San Francisco Minstrels used in 
New York City, 585 Broadway, was housed over the American Fire Detector 
Company.  Considering that they ended many of their shows with indoor fireworks, 
it wasn't a bad idea.  


Cheers,
Sharon



________________________________
From: Kit Barry <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, December 2, 2011 12:49:52 AM
Subject: Second floor use for theaters -

Forum -

Re:  Sharon McCoy comment - ". . .  most theatres were on the second =
floor for=20
some reason I still can't fathom . . . "

In reference to why theaters were sometimes located on the 2nd floor, =
the answer lies
likely on the 1st floor. How was the 1st floor being used? Building use =
would follow
the flow of highest economic benefit. Theaters were often used =
sporadically, not=20
daily. Therefore it would be more economically useful to have the 1st =
floor for a=20
business that was in daily use, like a store, or a hotel lobby.=20

In downtown Brattleboro, there were three 2nd floor spaces used for =
dances,=20
performances, meetings, and entertainments. Two were above hotel =
lobbies,=20
the 3rd was above a store.

Kit
The Ephemera Archive for American Studies
Brattleboro, Vermont=