No ‘away we go’ yet: decision to raze Jackie Gleason Theater deferred

Action that could see a new Jackie Gleason theater rise in Miami Beach has been deferred a month by city commissioners as they try to figure out how to approach the project.

Talk focused on Finance and Economic Resiliency Committee recommendations that the city begin discussion with Live Nation, which controls the theater’s programming, focusing on construction of a new theater at or near the present site.

“I would like to encourage my colleagues to support me in asking for the staff to do a research report to identify exactly what, if anything, can be salvaged from the integrity of the building structure itself, understanding that the innards are probably not salvageable, understanding what remnants might remain of any of the architectural significance,” said Commissioner Tanya Bhatt.

The commission has the chance to be transformational, she said, because the venue has a wealth of history.

“It’s called the Jackie Gleason because Jackie Gleason moved his show down here when the show opened up,” she said of the television programming that the theater held. “The video montage was a zoom in from the water over the buildings of Miami Beach all the way to the theater.”

But despite the history, Commissioner Bhatt explained the theater’s state.

“The building is in reasonably good shape. The structure just passed its 40-year recertification,” she said, but “the innards are being held together by baling wire and bubble gum. So, the $30 million that we have could be used to get rid of the theater and build something new in conjunction with a partnership of Live Nation or AEG or whoever might come and put forth the best proposal, and that might be a reasonable way to go.”

There is the opportunity to use the land the theater currently sits on, said Ms. Bhatt. “It would get relocated to the grassy part … and then you would then free up almost two acres of land that could be used for housing for the missing middle in the middle of our city.”

Another option is a full gut rehab, she said. Elements of the structure could stay intact.

But she asked for a brief pause for information to act on.

“There is an opportunity to reimagine the inside of the building to make it feel as swaggy and shagadelic and swingy as the 1950s and ’60’s were, so when you walk in, you feel like you’re going into this fabulous theater that exudes that era, which it doesn’t currently,” she said.

Commissioner Laura Dominguez cited community passion for the theater and suggested community input.

Commissioner David Suarez supported deferral and said “I think recently there has been a change in historic preservation where replication is a form of historic preservation.”

“We have approximately $29,110,000,” said Elizabeth Miro, facilities and fleet management interim director, after Mr. Suarez asked what funds the city has to repair the theater.

“It is to make repairs,” Ms. Miro said. “It’s a capital project.”

The $30 million, she said, “wouldn’t be enough to do a state-of-the-art building as has been conceptualized by Live Nation…. Funding beyond that, I think, will be required.”

“I just wanted to throw that out there to see if you know if we can rebuild it in its exact shell instead of keeping the shell and then doing the inside,” Mr. Suarez asked.

Commissioner Bhatt said there’s not enough information about what is and isn’t salvageable.

“One way or the other, we’re going to get a new state-of-the-art facility, whether it’s replication, whether it’s a gut rehab on the inside but protecting the existing structure on the outside, or building something new,” Ms. Bhatt said. “So again, that’s why I’m just asking for a deferral for a month.

Hopefully that would be sufficient time for staff to put together a thorough compendium of information … to try to make everybody happy.”

Commissioner Joseph Magazine suggested a simple approach.

“Let’s ask staff to come back and deliver something very simple: two proposals,” he said. “A rehabbed gut reno [renovation] of the existing structure, and a new structure, and for both of them say: ‘Here’s the pros and cons of A. Here’s the pros and cons of B’.”