Effort to save Rivoli Theatre faces another delay

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The owner of the Rivoli Theatre is in a legal dispute with the previous owner that could prevent the old movie house from being saved before structural problems render it unsalvageable.

The Rivoli, 3155 E. 10th St., has the potential to be a catalyst for further redevelopment of the East 10th Street corridor, the stretch adopted by organizers of Super Bowl XLVI, if the not-for-profit that owns it can win complete control of the 1927 structure and stabilize it.

The owner, the Rivoli Center for the Performing Arts Inc., is locked in a dispute with Charles R. Chulchian, who gifted it to the not-for-profit in 2007. Chulchian retained an interest in the building at the time of the transfer, a detail that has complicated efforts to salvage the Rivoli.

REW_rivoli_15colMark Dollase, chairman of Rivoli Center for the Performing Arts Inc., is concerned the roof of the building will collapse before his group can raise money to save it. (IBJ Photo/Perry Reichanadter)

Mark Dollase, chairman of Rivoli Center, said his group has been working to win complete control of the building and appeared to be close to achieving that goal. But Chulchian recently hired new legal counsel and notified Dollase’s group April 9 that he was renewing his effort to retain a stake in the building.

Chulchian bought the Rivoli in 1976 and formerly lived in an apartment on the building’s second floor. Attempts to locate him to comment on his continuing interest in the theater were unsuccessful.

Dollase doesn’t know how much time it will take to resolve the latest legal twist, but he’s concerned that the roof of the building will collapse before his group can raise the money to save it.

Dollase said it would cost about $300,000 to put a new roof on the theater, a step that would buy the building more time. He said there are funders waiting in the wings to help save the building, but they are reluctant to invest before the legal issues are resolved.

A mild winter and early spring have helped slow deterioration of the theater, which was well constructed to begin with, Dollase said. “We’re fortunate that the Rivoli was overbuilt.”

The Rivoli anchors one of three redevelopment nodes that have been a priority for the East 10th Street Civic Association, a group working to encourage the corridor’s revival.

Tammi Hughes, executive director of the civic association, said her group’s dream is to see the Rivoli restored so that it can house performance space, studio space, practice rooms and other arts opportunities that neighborhood residents can take advantage of. Street-level space could house retail tenants.

The other two nodes are at 10th and Jefferson Avenue and 10th and Rural Street. Community advocates have spent years planning for a revival of the 10th Street corridor, an effort that was adopted by the National Football League and the Indianapolis Super Bowl Host Committee. That high-profile support has leveraged millions of dollars for housing and retail redevelopments in the area.  



  • patrickdooley@aol.com
    Chulchain has held this building hostage for too many years while not protecting this important part of East 10th Streets history. Nearby a neighborhood is experiencing a rebirth in spite of building owners like Chulchain do not maintain their property.
  • It's always about the money
    Chulchian, who gifted it to the not-for-profit in 2007 only did that to relieve himself of the upkeep & tax burden. Now, the neighborhood has a chance to flourish, he wants to cash in on his 'gift'. Perhaps the gift should be rescinded; he could repay tax assessments from 2007 through 2012 and the necessary expense for upkeep during that time.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.