No. Nothing can be built above the theatre but the law allows someone with empty airspace that creates a low density level for the applicable zoning to transfer that airspace to another landowner who can then build at a higher density on their own building than would otherwise be allowed.
So if the zoning would allow a 50 story building on that space, and only 5 stories are in the building, the cubic volume of the additional 45 stories (in general terms, it is actually a lot more complicated) that could have been built into that space is sold to someone who can go over the allowed density with those transferred air rights.
The theaters cannot be demolished as they are landmarks. Real estate is non existent in the area. A hotel will be built atop the theater. Do you think it will not happen again? We need more hotels right? Therefore more hotels & high rises will be built over other theaters . It is not brain surgery Philly
actually YOU are wrong. just because a building has landmark status does not mean it is safe from demolition to a developer if the $$ is high enough. Several landmark theatres have been torn down to make way for new development. know your history before you speak.
I know my history . The only thing times square has left is it legit theaters. Take those away and Times Square is nothing.None of these theaters are going anywhere . Their character will be destroyed as will the fabric of Times Square hey but if the theater owners can make a few bucks what the hell.
So much misinformation in this thread. Where to start.
First, we will need a LOT more than $50mil to buy the Times Square Church!
Second, nothing can be built OVER the landmarked theatres. So it is incorrect to say there will be more built because (a) there are none and (b) there cannot be a first one. If you really knew your history, you would understand that.
Third, demolition requires a lot more than paying someone off. The theatres (like Penn Station) were torn down BEFORE the extant regime became law and in fact are the raison d'être for those laws. A knowledge of history requires a knowledge of how timelines work.
Finally, there is actually an enormous amount of yet unbuilt space in the theatre district. The problem for developers is density, not ground space. Cantilevering over a Broadway landmark, even if it were legal (which it is not), is an expense no one covets. It is a lot easier to build up in solid blocks.
The original Helen Hayes was a landmark with a small "l" not a capital "L." After it and others was demolished in 1982 (the Hayes was where the entrance to the Marriot driveway is now), many theatres including the Simon (landmarked inside and out) received the "capital L" status in the 80s, largely in reaction.
The Shuberts are supposedly building a new theatre next to the Imperial.
The Times Square Church/Hellinger theatre was sold by the Nederlanders to the church in the early 90s, which is not interested in selling it. (It is, however, landmarked!) Only you and I can change that. Now raise a half a billion dollars so we can.
A true landmark is recognized by either a city, state, or federal government. To meet landmark status, factors beyond sentiment and warm fuzzy feeling are taken into account--Who was the architect? Who commissioned the building? Does it represent one of the major architectural styles or is it an example of a little recognized style? Is it structurally safe? If rehabilitation needs to be done, can it be done in a manner that is appropriate to style?
A message from your BWW preservationist (MSHP '09, ACHP Section 106 specialist)