Treading the Boards with the Majestic Theater, Los Angeles, in Engineering News, 11 February 1909

by Paul R. Spitzzeri

One of the many signposts of the rapid rise of Los Angeles into a major American metropolis during the late 19th and early 20th centuries was its ascendance as a center of entertainment, first in southern California, then in the western United States and, eventually, nationally and globally. Whether with live music, theatrical performances or film, venues for these presentations gradually became larger and more ornate in decor, as well as acoustics.

By 1930, the end of the Homestead’s interpretive period, the core of the Angel City’s theater district was along Broadway with a string of venues, twenty survivors of which on that street and nearby ones, comprise the first and largest such district on the National Register of Historic Places. The oldest of the remaining houses is the Pantages/Arcade from 1910 and the youngest, from just over two decades later, is the Roxie.

For this post, we look at what was considered a paragon of theatrical design and construction, the Majestic Theatre, completed in 1908, and the subject of the featured artifact from the Museum’s collection, an article from the 11 February 1909 edition of Engineering News, subtitled “A Journal of Civil, Mechanical, Mining and Electrical Engineering,” and, naturally, a publication with plenty of technical detail not necessarily very absorbing for anyone other than those working in those fields!

Still, it is noteworthy that the article observed that the eight-story building, with some office space beyond the auditorium, located on the west side of Broadway just north of 9th Street, was built almost completely of reinforced concrete, the only exception being a steel bridge over the stage. In fact, the publication noted that “in general design it follows the usual column, beam and floor-slab standards, but in the cantilever balconies and roof beams over the auditorium, the extraordinary size of the members make them worthy of record.”

The process to get to these unusual structure, however, was also somewhat exceptional. The Majestic was originally, in 1904, slated to be built at Broadway between 6th and 7th streets and part of a 7-story structure with a hotel, costing some $300,000, with a syndicate, capitalized at a half million dollar, incorporated to undertake the project. Among the owners of the property were Harry Chandler, vice-president of the Los Angeles Times; Dr. John Randolph Haynes, best known now for the foundation bearing his name and that of his wife; and confectioner Louis J. Christopher.

The lessee was Oliver Morosco, who was then still in his twenties and was the foster son of San Francisco theater owner and impresario, Walter M. Morosco. Morosco came to Los Angeles in 1899 and took over the struggling Burbank Theatre, turning into a thriving venue as the City of Angels underwent another major development boom with the onset of the Twentieth Century. Buoyed by his success, Morosco began work on the Majestic with his partners as noted above, with the incorporation of the firm announced in late August, construction to start on a building with steel framing, hollow-tile brick walls, and concrete floors and roof, within a week or so on a plan from the prominent Jewish architect Alfred F. Rosenheim and a grand opening anticipated in March 1905.

Problems soon arose, however. While Morosco claimed, in October, that the theater would be opened within eight months, or June, the 12 February 1905 edition of the Times recorded that “work . . . was suspended pending the perfecting of the financial arrangements,” but Rosenheim told the paper that he expected to start receiving construction bids in about a month. Moreover, the Majestic Theater Company was comprised of Morosco, Rosenheim and three other men, which reflected a change from the aforementioned syndicate, while Chandler, Haynes, Christopher and a fourth man retained their property ownership.

A week later, the Los Angeles Herald ran a feature on the project, including a new rendering by Rosenheim and provided some detail on the theater and structure, noting that one of the influences was to be the Metropolitan Opera House in New York City, which the architect recently visited. The 1600-seat venue was to include an unusual inner foyer with a thick glass screen and which would allow “those who wish to promenade to witness the play from the rear” of the auditorium. It was concluded the the existing one-story structure was to be razed in a month or so.

During the spring, it was reported that construction was to start in July, but there were problems in determining, with the owners, what the price was to be for demolition of the existing building. That was finally worked out by early October, but then came the need for revised plans and cost estimates. Rosenheim, after having prepared working drawings in August, submitted his new renderings later that month and the price was pegged at $450,000 and an accompanying illustration that reflected further transformations from the two previous drawings.

More delays ensued, though, and, in January 1906, the Los Angeles Express reported that “again the Morosco Majestic theater project has come to life” as the tenants of the existing structure were to be given notice to vacate, that contracts were let to contractors and that a stock company was hired to prepare a schedule. The paper, however, cautioned that “there have been rumors and statements before.”

In July, Morosco took out ads stating that the Majestic Building Company secured another location for the theater, though where was not noted, and offered the sale of his 40-year lease with the Chandler, Haynes and Christoper group. The Express of 7 February 1907 reported that excavation on the new site, owned by the Hamburger Realty and Trust Company, the firm which owned the prominent Hamburger’s Department Store (founded as the People’s Store by Jewish Angelenos Asher Hamburger and his sons in the 1880s and which was sold in 1923 to David May for his May Company.)

The paper added that work was expected to start imminently, with tenants of the current structures to leave within a week or so, and the theater to be readied for a premiere in the fall. The 8-story edifice was to have a steel frame and reinforced concrete throughout with ground floor stores and an 18-foot wide entrance to the theater, with a capacity of 1,750 seats, between them. By April, it was announced that the architects were Abraham M. Edelman, whose father was the first rabbi of the Temple B’nai B’rith in Los Angeles, and Leo W. Barnett, who was Edelman’s nephew.

The Herald of 13 May recorded still further delays, due to an unspecified illness suffered by Morosco, that would likely involve three months before work could resume. Moses A. Hamburger was quoted in the Times just under a week later as saying that all construction bids were received, excepting for excavation, which were expected quite soon, but added that the previous excavating contractor “threw us over” and this required a new request. Moreover, Hamburger continued,

the one thing which hangs the starting of the work is the action of the lessee, Oliver Morosco, of the Burbank Theater. His end of the deal is going through slowly, but all appearances point to a speedy termination of the negotiations. Financial considerations are not standing in the way of a speedy commencement of work on the building.

The paper added that “if the failure of Morosco to arrange his part of the deal is the one thing which is now causing delay, that fact casts more than a shadow of doubt upon the entire proposition, inasmuch as Morosco utterly failed to take care of his part in another deal of a similar nature.” This, of course, meant the previous Majestic iteration. At the end of the month, though, the general contract was awarded to F.O. Engstrum, while excavation was awarded to Frank W. Whittier.

While the Shubert Organization was hired in February 1906 for arranging performances at the earlier version of the theater, Morosco reached a deal in August with Klaw and Erlanger, with whom he had worked when he was first in the business, while Shubert entered into an agreement with the Mason Theatre. Also in August, yet another rendering of the Majestic was published in the Express and the Times of the 25th recorded that the latest design reflected “many unique engineering features” developed by the firm of Mayberry & Parker and some of what it reported appears in the Engineering News article.

Specifically, the cantilevers used to support the massive balcony and gallery “have the greatest known projection of any known reinforced-concrete cantilever, while that of the balcony has a equal projection with the longest known steel cantilevers of similar construction,” excluding work for bridges. These were 27-foot long for the gallery and 30 feet for the balcony, the latter having a half-dozen cantilevers, two on the side measuring eighteen feet and the four central ones totaled 45 and 51 feet in total, meaning 15 to 21 feet within the structural supports, and rested on columns situated between the auditorium floor and that of the foyer and anchored to a six-story wall at the back of the theater. The technical explanation of how stress was distributed is complicated, but was deemed to have been implemented “in an admirable manner.”

Beyond this, it was remarked that the use of reinforced concrete for the balcony and gallery joists or beams was considered “very economical” because the casting to follow the curvature of the balcony was “a feature that could not be carried out in structural steel except at a considerable increase in cost.” An accompanying photo showed the cantilevers in this section, while it was added that stress testing for the worse possible scenario showed that the system could handle 2 1/2 times the maximum load for which they were designed. Boxes on the sides of the proscenium arch projected six feet out and had six-inch cantilevered slabs, with the rails, stairs and partition walls all cast of reinforced concrete as part of what was deemed “truly a monolithic structure.”

The article also observed that,

The spanning of the auditorium with three great reinforced-concrete beams was a rather bold but successfully solved engineering problem. There are beams of longer span than these, notably those in the Temple Auditorium in the same city, which are, however, more truly arched trusses and support only a roof. The beams in the Majestic Theater have horizontal chords and carry a three-story building [meaning the office floors above the auditorium] on them.

Again, the technical details are a bit mind-numbing in terms of the supports for carrying a maximum load of 375 tons, but it was observed that “supporting these great trusses are massive columns over 80 ft. long” and these latter extended two feet outside the auditorium and into adjoining alleys in the form of pilasters, which helped to open up the space and limit intrusions for patrons. Another innovation was extending the columns into the next floor above the auditorium, but slightly reduced in size, to further deal with the thrust and moment in the handling of forces.

Also highlighted was the way in which concrete was handled, so that a tower was constructed with a track and hopper, handling two or three batches at a time, that could be moved floor to floor. From the hopper, which had a gate, 7-inch galvanized iron pipe with movable parts and assisted by ball-bearing joints, could direct the concrete where it was needed. There were experiments with various sizes of pipe until that diameter was determined ideal and the pipe was flushed before and after distribution of the concrete. A gravity system also reduced labor while “it also gave a concrete of very uniform consistency” that wasn’t dry so as to clog the pipe or wet to allow separated aggregates in the material.

In March 1908, a new booking arrangement was made with the Northwest Theatrical Association, rather than Klaw and Erlanger, on a five-year term. The Herald of the 9th added that a striking color scheme employing ivory, peacock blue, green and gold was decided upon, with seats of ivory enamel and peacock blue cushions and “the ceiling will present the appearance of an immense tree, through the branches of which will fly birds of paradise.” Vines were to be featured flanking the proscenium arch with peacocks and birds of paradise predominant. A Mission-style smoking room and basement grill were also mentioned, while prices were to range from a quarter for gallery seats to $1 for parquet seats.

During the summer, a good deal of media attention was devoted to the remarkable murals by Dutch artist Antoon Molkenboer (1872-1960) with emphasis made on a 36-foot long work on the proscenium arch featuring 16 figures 6 1/2 feet in height, with a core trio representing “Truth,” “Comedy” and “Drama” at the center. There were also figures from Greece and Rome and “a Spanish Colonial dancer, a cowboy, and Indian and others—the last reflecting aspects of California history as the artist saw them. Molkenboer told the Los Angeles Record of 28 August,

There has never been anything like it attempted in Los Angeles before. Each figure has been painted from real life, and all the models have been obtained in this city . . . This canvas couldn’t have been painted anywhere but here. There are features of it purely local and for which the models must have been found in the vicinity . . . The two end groups deal with California [historical] circumstances.

The venue finally opened on 23 November 1908 with the production being a musical fantasy called “The Land of Nod” and the Times observed that, while it sat 1,700 persons, the venue was “cosy” because of the unobstructed sight lines from the “unsupported” balcony and gallery and the color scheme was complimented by “the indirect system of lighting” which “gives the whole auditorium a peculiar glamour.”

It was noted by the paper and its contemporaries that hundreds of workers rushed to the last moment to complete the venue, though some foyer details and others awaited final touches, and Morosco, worn out by long hours directing the project, stated that he was worried a week out that the venue would not be ready for opening night. The Record noted some of the last-minute hustle and bustle and added that the dressing rooms were also incomplete, but it marveled at the “herculean labor” that went into the project at the eleventh hour. It added that “the Majestic theater is by far the most elaborate of any local theater” and observed that the title of Molkenboer’s main mural was “The Progress of California.”

The Herald of the 23rd opined that the Majestic was “a theater second only in the United States in its richness of decoration and use of modern details for the comfort and pleasure of its patrons to the famous Amsterdam theater of New York.” In offered that, in some respects, the venue was even superior to the Big Apple counterpart, likely meaning the engineering that supported the auditorium without intrusive columns and other elements, while the decorative scheme was also lavished with praise. Seats three-and-a-half inches wider than normal, a thoroughly modern ventilation system, parlors and smoking rooms, and other amenities were also highlighted, while Morosco was said to have uttered, “it is a perfect theater and I hope the people of Los Angeles like it.”

The Express expressed the view that “nothing could have been more majestically pleasing” than the theater’s debut and that the upper crust of Angel City society approved of the venue and the opening performance, stating,

From the society coign of vantage—or coin of the republic, which is necessary to retain a social position—it truly was a land of nod [a dreamland of pleasure]. Everyone of the social-elect was there and nodded to every other one of the social-elect, and violently nodded approval of the attraction as well . . .

There are only compliments to the actors and to Oliver Morosco, the manager—but these are made every hour of the day by the public which eager to exchange its money for seats.

As impressive as the Majestic was in all of its components, including its advanced structural engineering, its lifespan was remarkably short. In 1933, it was razed by the Hamburgers and replaced by a parking lot—a destiny that was all too common as Los Angeles became more and more car-centric. The Times of 23 April reminisced about the venue’s heyday and it observed that the peak was during the 1920s before it fell into decline showing motion pictures and, worse, burlesque shows. Today, the site is occupied by the recently established non-profit Society of Art Los Angeles.