# OKCpedia > General Real Estate Topics >  Poll: Demolish Stage Center?

## shawnw

Should the architecturally acclaimed, but functionally incapacitated Stage Center building be demolished?

----------


## Plutonic Panda

I voted yes, however I do NOT think it is an eyesore No whatever is built should have a display or at least a nice picture of the Stage Center in remembrance in--what I consider at least to be--it's honor.

----------


## Spartan

Bump. Need to get more people to see this and vote...

----------


## shawnw

Yeah, I'm very surprised by it so far. Was sure it would be pretty evenly split.

----------


## Urbanized

There should have been a fourth option; "don't tear it down yet, use denial of a demolition permit to force a different level of redevelopment of that location."

On this board THAT is what is driving the no votes and skewing the numbers. There are few actual advocates of preservation for the sake of preservation here.

----------


## cagoklahoma

I voted yes, but I do think that in 25 years many of us may regret our decision.

----------


## shawnw

I was personally most interested discerning the preservation for the sake of preservation vote and am surprised by the low turnout. I truly thought there were more.

Based on the diatribe on the Stage Center thread I have no doubt that a block demo for higher use vote would be unanimous or close to it.

----------


## Urbanized

I've already accepted its fate. I would prefer preservation for the sake of preservation (with an identified user and funded maintenance plan), but that would require an altruistic champion with deep pockets and a love for architecture, and sadly I think OKC is just not up to that task. Now that the "tear it down" cacophony is reaching a crescendo, it becomes near-impossible to stop that train.

That said, it's ridiculous how everyone is obsessing over the need to redevelop or empty this space RIGHT THE HELL NOW - like it is somehow holding back progress in downtown - when smoking holes, parking lots and other available development sites litter all of downtown. If that building stood as-is, it would be another decade AT LEAST before we ran out of other options for office development in the CBD.

Oh, and THEN you have C2S land - acres and acres of it - to consider. A shortage of development options is the OPPOSITE of OKC's problem right now.

----------


## Just the facts

I voted yes - because is it is an example of poor land-use.  If it was being proposed today it would never be allowed downtown and the very people trying to save it would be the most vocal in opposing it (cough cough - the Deep Deuce Springhill Suites).

----------


## shawnw

I don't disagree with you really, from the why this land right now perspective (because there is definitely no shortage of options), but let's say we were somehow able to cancel the sale to Rainey this afternoon. What would be the reasonable next step? The land reverts back to OCCF and they're on the hook for maintenance and tax costs indefinitely? OCURA buys it from OCCF or Rainey and pays for maintenance and taxes indefinitely? 

Maybe indefinitely is unreasonable, and if so what's the acceptable amount of time to wait?  Until SC rots to the ground?  Five years?  Ten?  36?  Just curious how long it would take for everyone to be agreeable that literally no one on Earth is willing to "save" it. I'm actually okay with waiting if we can define something short of "forever" as the acceptable time period to wait.

I know many would say "we only want to wait for a higher use and that could be tomorrow". Well, remember, for the purposes of this poll, I'm arguing strictly for or against preservation for preservations sake. Because if you're simply saying don't demo it now because this project is not "world class" enough, you've entered an extremely subjective/gray area where no set of defined parameters will make everyone happy. As we've seen, one mans world class is another mans trailer park. Just trying specifically not to turn this into a duplicate of what's going on at the Stage Center Tower thread (pretty please)...


(disclosure:  I still don't know OCURA's funding stream or how it works in general)

----------


## lasomeday

nm

----------


## kevinpate

Sorry, not voting for a choice that doesn't reflect why I feel as I feel. 
It isn't (well, shouldn't be) an eyesore. 
It isn't that it is a gem (though it was unique before it was abandoned)
It isn't something I am unaware of.

It is a building no one with the means to preserve is willing to preserve. More the pity. 

However, that being the case, and being a reasonable fan of folks doing what they will with their own property within the confines of the law, it is time for it to go because the owner wants to do something else with his property. I can not join in the with the camp that believes folks with zero skin in the game possess some inalienable right to to demand a property owner build tall and shiny to their satisfaction or be held hostage until he does or until he sells to someone who will.  Sorry, that's just not my kind of parade and I can't ride on the float.

----------


## Urbanized

> I voted yes - because is it is an example of poor land-use.  If it was being proposed today it would never be allowed downtown and the very people trying to save it would be the most vocal in opposing it (cough cough - the Deep Deuce Springhill Suites).


There are many examples of poor land use that stand on their own merits architecturally. Pretty much anything ever designed by Le Corbusier. Most of Frank Lloyd Wright's portfolio. Our own city government and State Capitol buildings. Doesn't mean they should be torn down. Not everything has to be about land use; it is OK for architecture to be celebrated for the sake of architecture and even worthwhile and instructive for it to exist to demonstrate where even great architects meandered from the urban path.

It's unfair and myopic to equate SC with a junky hotel property simply because neither fronts the street. Sometimes you have to be able to look past the tree in front of you, JTF, and see the entire forest.

----------


## lasomeday

nm

----------


## shawnw

Don't get me wrong I definitely agree that there are many many examples of architecture worth saving for its own sake. But there is a cost to that, however unfortunate. Who covers that cost, and if the answer is no one, then what?

----------


## Urbanized

I have no answer, which is why I said I have made my peace with it. This town is not up to the task of saving it. It's cultural.

----------


## shawnw

Agreed.

----------


## Just the facts

> Sometimes you have to be able to look past the tree in front of you, JTF, and see the entire forest.


Ironically, I think am the one looking at the entire forest and not the single trees.

Jane Jacobs wrote about this exact situation in her opposition to the Lincoln Center and she turned out to be exactly right.

----------


## HangryHippo

> This is why I am never fighting for anything in this city again.  People don't care about living somewhere with character, they want a baby Dallas not OKC with its own rich history and unique character.


Haha, okay then.  If losing Stage Center means that OKC doesn't care about rich history or character, then you seriously need some perspective.

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> I voted yes, but I do think that in 25 years many of us may regret our decision.


I've been alive for 25+ years and of that 25+ years I've regretted the darn thing was ever built.

----------


## Urbanized

> Ironically, I think am the one looking at the entire forest and not the single trees.
> 
> Jane Jacobs wrote about this exact situation in her opposition to the Lincoln Center and she turned out to be exactly right.


So then...you would support the demolition of City Hall and the Civic Center? I am all for stopping poor land use before it happens. That is absolutely correct and should ALWAYS be our goal going forward, especially downtown, and especially in light of what has transpired here for decades. That said, when a building achieves a status of arguable national or international importance, it transcends that discussion. Lots of people hate(d) Warhol, too.

----------


## Urbanized

> Haha, okay then.  If losing Stage Center means that OKC doesn't care about rich history or character, then you seriously need some perspective.


You're right. It doesn't necessarily mean those things. It only means that as a community we place very little value on architecture and the built environment, which is a bummer in its own right.

----------


## Just the facts

> So then...you would support the demolition of City Hall and the Civic Center? I am all for stopping poor land use before it happens. That is absolutely correct and should ALWAYS be our goal going forward, especially downtown, and especially in light of what has transpired here for decades. That said, when a building achieves a status of arguable national or international importance, it transcends that discussion. Lots of people hate(d) Warhol, too.


The Civic District is different in my mind because they are public buildings that should be built to a different standard than private structures, but if those buildings were abandoned and obsolete to the point that they could never be used as anything ever again then I think replacement would be the next step.  The problem with Stage Center is that it never crossed the line from Work of Art to Art that Works, so in that respect I actually see it as failed architecture.

----------


## shawnw

> The problem with Stage Center is that it never crossed the line from Work of Art to Art that Works, so in that respect I actually see it as failed architecture.


Been trying to figure out how to say this...

----------


## kevinpate

> ...  The problem with Stage Center is that it never crossed the line from Work of Art to Art that Works, so in that respect I actually see it as failed architecture.


(Oklahoma CIty) A nail was obliterated today when a hammer struck it squarely, cleanly and with great force.

----------


## mkjeeves

JTF, have you ever been inside and/or attended any events at Stage Center?

----------


## jccouger

How each question is worded on this poll is incredibly skewed to what option you should pick. What a ****ing joke.

----------


## shawnw

> How each question is worded on this poll is incredibly skewed to what option you should pick. What a ****ing joke.


Yes, as I've noted, I worded it that way for a particular reason. Enjoy laughing at the very unscientific poll. You're welcome.

Also, feel free to make your own poll with your own, sure to be better, wording.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

While the situation is somewhat different, here is a comparable situation in Portland:  Michael Graves's Portland Building Faces Demolition Threat - Architect Magazine

----------


## OKCisOK4me

> That said, when a building achieves a status of arguable national or international importance, it transcends that discussion.


As previously posted by someone else... no one outside of Oklahoma City even knows this building exists unless they're some kind of art movement history buff.  Stage Center ain't the Guggenheim!  I'm going to post a new thread on skyscraperpage.com forum to see if people know what it is without labeling it as I'm 100% certain the only thing it has transcended is the line between life and death.

----------


## Just the facts

> JTF, have you ever been inside and/or attended any events at Stage Center?


Nope.  I moved to metro OKC in 1989.  When was the last performance held in Stage Center?

I guess it could be argued that Stage Center has actually caused the demise of live theater in OKC.

http://www.okchistory.com/index.php?...aces&Itemid=77





> “It has now broken the back of several (arts agencies); so now to manage it
> 
> right, we have to have a variety of companies, and keep it very busy,” the
> 
> spokesman said

----------


## Urbanized

> As previously posted by someone else... no one outside of Oklahoma City even knows this building exists unless they're some kind of art movement history buff...


That is our own fault.

----------


## Urbanized

> Nope.  I moved to metro OKC in 1989.  When was the last performance held in Stage Center? ...


I attended a masterclass hosted by ACM@UCO maybe 3-4 years ago. A great performance of Glengarry Glenn Ross maybe a decade ago. A number of parties and receptions in between. In retrospect I wish I would have supported it better myself.

----------


## Just the facts

I was really hoping the Arts Council would have sold the land for enough money to fund a new theater downtown but for some reason they appeared to not have.

----------


## zookeeper

> As previously posted by someone else...* no one outside of Oklahoma City even knows this building exists* unless they're some kind of art movement history buff.  Stage Center ain't the Guggenheim! * I'm going to post a new thread on skyscraperpage.com forum to see if people know what it is without labeling it as I'm 100% certain the only thing it has transcended is the line between life and death.*


You miss the point. Completely. It has nothing to do with how many recognize the Stage Center. Nothing. That's not what makes it valuable. It is art - in and of itself. I could show you many paintings that you wouldn't "recognize" but I would then tell you how much preservation went into them and how they sold for millions of dollars. Your not knowing about that painting has nothing to do with its value as art.

It's obvious you hate the Stage Center with all the "hamster tubes and boxes" comments. You see that, many others see art - beauty. And possibilities!

----------


## Garin

If their were possibilities for it , a capitalist would have already stepped up and taken it over along time ago. The only people that want to see it stay are those that see it as an art piece. Revenue needs to win out put something there with a purpose. vacationers aren't visiting Oklahoma to come see the Stage Center.   The building was useless after it was constructed.

----------


## mkjeeves

Nope. I'd like to keep attending performances there. As a regular attendee it was great for that.




> 1989


Saw Macbeth there in maybe 2004ish? Attended The Annual Wintertales Storytelling Festival there pretty regularly and I believe it was held there last in 2009. It changed to a fall event the next year. One of those festivals would probably have been the last time I was there.  The flood was in mid 2010.

July 01, 2010
Check out the photos below of the Stage Center after its basement and offices area flooded. Water reached more than five feet high, ruining the office furniture, supplies, performance materials and computer equipment.

Six arts organizations were displaced.
Stage Center Flood Photos

----------


## betts

> You miss the point. Completely. It has nothing to do with how many recognize the Stage Center. Nothing. That's not what makes it valuable. It is art - in and of itself. I could show you many paintings that you wouldn't "recognize" but I would then tell you how much preservation went into them and how they sold for millions of dollars. Your not knowing about that painting has nothing to do with its value as art.
> 
> It's obvious you hate the Stage Center with all the "hamster tubes and boxes" comments. You see that, many others see art - beauty. And possibilities!


Thank you.  To me it's beautiful.  I will be sad every time I walk past whatever boring, mediocre office building they build 
there.  Or worse yet, a paved parking lot.  Oklahoma City will get a lot blander and less memorable with its demise.  Anyone think Rainey's building will ever make the pages of an architecture magazine or book?  No one will even be able to brag about it on skyscraper city.  What a waste.

----------


## MustangGT

Reality has to come to the fore here.  Some buildings have simply deteriorated to the point they are not economically viable.  DROP IT!!!  Those who want to save it pool your money, buy it, renovate it on your dime with no taxpayer funds.  Otherwise give it up!

----------


## zookeeper

It's time for some of you to watch this.

----------


## zookeeper

> Reality has to come to the fore here.  Some buildings have simply deteriorated to the point they are not economically viable.  DROP IT!!!  Those who want to save it pool your money, buy it, renovate it on your dime with no taxpayer funds.  Otherwise give it up!


You are always so rude and abrasive. There's public money going to things you support, we could all list them. Nobody's shouting at you.

----------


## MustangGT

I am not shouting but I am getting tired of being dogged for no reason.  Your opinion is no more or less valuable.  And yes I am abrasive but so are many other posters that you neglect to make the mistake to call out.  Targeting me huh???

----------


## shawnw

Zoo, just curious, how much public money do you think should go towards SC?  As much as went to the Skirvin restoration?  As much as we'd pay to subsidize a convention center hotel?  I'm not arguing for or against public money, but asking where the line of reasonableness is in that regard.

----------


## Urbanized

The Crystal Bridge and Myriad Botanical Gardens don't make money. Neither does the Oklahoma City Museum of Art. Should we tear them all down? Public Libraries? The Fred Jones Jr. Art Museum at OU? Admission is free. I sincerely doubt that the attractions at Riversport make profit, especially compared to what it took to build them.

The idea that the litmus test for what exists in a city is whether or not it makes money for someone is laughable, and ridiculous. If that were the case, what an absolutely horrible place that would be to live in.

----------


## jccouger

> The Crystal Bridge and Myriad Botanical Gardens don't make money. Neither does the Oklahoma City Museum of Art. Public Libraries? The Fred Jones Jr. Art Museum at OU? Admission is free. I sincerely doubt that the attractions at Riversport make profit, especially compared to what it took to build them.
> 
> The idea that the litmus test for what exists in a city is whether or not it makes money for someone is laughable, and ridiculous. If that were the case, what an absolutely horrible place that would be to live in.


Bravo.

----------


## mkjeeves

*Oklahoma Shakespeare in the Park*’s story is an epic worthy of the Bard.  In the midst of fires and floods, the company has continued to grow, and is today one of Oklahoma’s most treasured cultural assets.

<snip>

*A spring 1993 production of Othello was produced at Stage Center* in downtown Oklahoma City, commencing a tradition that would carry on for the next two decades.
*January and February of 1994 featured the second production at Stage Center, Romeo and Juliet.  The winter productions downtown presented an excellent opportunity to expose school groups to Shakespeare, in a way the summer productions could not.*
The 1994 summer season featured The Taming of the Shrew (which also toured), Antony and Cleopatra, Cyrano de Bergerac and The Tempest.
*In January and February of 1995, OSP staged Macbeth at Stage Center.*
The 1995 summer productions were Much Ado About Nothing (which also toured), The Comedy of Errors, Wild Oats and Macbeth.  This year began the practice of re-staging the winter show at the end of the summer season, a tradition that lasted a decade.
*In January and February of 1996, The Winter’s Tale was performed at Stage Center.*  The 1996 summer season included Love’s Labour’s Lost, Henry IV, part 1, Scapin and The Winter’s Tale.
*The winter production at Stage Center in January and February of 1997 was Hamlet.*  The 1997 Summer Season featured Two Gentlemen of Verona (touring), The Duchess of Malfi, As You Like It and Hamlet.
The 1998 season began with a winter production of Richard III and included summer performances of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, The Merry Wives of Windsor and a restaging of Richard III.
*In 1999, OSP produced King Lear at Stage Center* as a part of the new “Stage Center Presents…” series with guest artist Greg Mullavey in the title role.
Summer productions in 1999 included Romeo and Juliet (which also toured), Twelfth Night and King Lear.
The Fires
*In March of 2000, the second production in the “Stage Center Presents…” series was Julius Caesar with guest artist Brian Lane Green as Marc Antony.*
Productions for the 2000 summer season were The Tempest, Taming of the Shrew and Julius Caesar.
November and December of 2000 also saw the second staging of A Christmas Carol in downtown Edmond, a tradition that OSP would carry on for several years.
*In winter of 2001, the “Stage Center Presents…” production was Much Ado About Nothing* with guest artist Richard Gilbert-Hill. The 2001 summer season productions were Henry V, Pericles and Much Ado About Nothing.
On December 12, 2001, a fire destroyed OSP’s Hafer Park stage.  Thanks to the generosity of many patrons, friends, and businesses, donations totaling over $25,000 poured in and the stage was rebuilt in time for the 2002 summer season.
Meanwhile, a third production of A Christmas Carol ran in downtown Edmond and toured to Norman and Wewoka.
*Guest director Curt Tofteland from the Kentucky Shakespeare Festival staged the 2002 “Stage Center Presents…” production of Macbeth.*  Macbeth, along with The Comedy of Errors and All’s Well that Ends Well, comprised the 2002 summer season at the rebuilt Hafer Park stage.
In December of 2002, A Christmas Carol was again staged in downtown Edmond and toured to Weatherford, Woodward and Lindsay.
*The winter production at Stage Center in March of 2003 was Othello,* and the summer season included As You Like It, The Winter’s Tale and Othello.
Following the December, 2003 production of A Christmas Carol at Cafe Broadway in downtown Edmond (and a tour to Ponca City), *OSP produced A Midsummer Night’s Dream at Stage Center in January and February of 2004* with guest artist Mel Cobb of Shakespeare & Company portraying Oberon.
The 2004 20th anniversary summer season featured Twelfth Night, Hamlet and A Midsummer Night’s Dream.
December of 2004 saw the annual production of A Christmas Carol relocate to Mitchell Hall at the University of Central Oklahoma, symbolic of OSP’s growing partnership with UCO in Edmond.
*In January, 2005 OSP produced Romeo and Juliet at Stage Center in downtown Oklahoma City.*
In April of 2005, OSP’s stage in Hafer Park again burned to the ground. With just weeks left till the summer season, board president Craig Barton led the organization into an agreement with the University of Central Oklahoma. For the next two summers, OSP would stage its seasons in UCO’s Plunkett Park.
The 2005 Summer Season featured The Merry Wives of Windsor, Love’s Labour’s Lost and Romeo and Juliet.
The December, 2005 production of A Christmas Carol toured to Mustang, Tishomingo, and the Gaillardia and River Oaks country clubs before running in UCO’s Mitchell Hall.
*The January, 2006 production at Stage Center in downtown Oklahoma City was The Taming of the Shrew.*  The 2006 summer season productions at UCO’s Plunkett Park were Two Gentlemen of Verona, Titus Andronicus and The Taming of the Shrew. In December, A Christmas Carol was performed at Mitchell Hall on the UCO campus with tours to Lindsay, WOSU in Altus, and the Gaillardia and River Oaks country clubs.
Rising from the Ashes and Finding a New Home
The two fires had been devastating to Oklahoma Shakespeare in the Park. The organization had used up most of its savings, and its audiences at UCO had dropped in half from the audiences at Hafer Park. Led by board president David Holt (a former child actor with the company), the organization began considering options beyond rebuilding in Edmond.
*In 1985, it would have made little sense to stage Shakespeare in downtown Oklahoma City, but the intervening years had represented a renaissance in the city’s history.   Downtown Oklahoma City was now a thriving destination, and OSP recognized that perhaps it was time to make the heart of the community its new permanent home.
In 2006, OSP entered negotiations with the City of Oklahoma City and the Myriad Gardens Foundation, led by Jim Tolbert, to relocate to the Myriad Botanical Gardens Water Stage in downtown Oklahoma City.  In December, the organization announced that in conjunction with a renovation of the Water Stage, it would relocate its summer seasons there. Additionally, OSP relocated its administrative offices from Edmond to Stage Center.*
*The January, 2007 production at Stage Center was The Tempest.*   In February, in recognition of its newfound home downtown, OSP held a fundraiser at the Skirvin Hilton in the restored Venetian Room the very first Friday after the hotel’s long-awaited reopening.
OSP’s summer 2007 inaugural productions in the Myriad Botanical Gardens were A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Cyrano de Bergerac and Macbeth. The 2007 productions were staged in repertory, with the final weekend of the season featuring all three shows. The 2007 summer season was a huge success, with increased attendance and enormous support from the Oklahoma City artistic and business communities.
*In November of 2007, OSP staged the official Centennial production of The Grapes of Wrath at Stage Center,* in commemoration of Oklahoma’s centennial as a state.
Also that winter, A Christmas Carol toured and performed at Pegasus Theatre on the UCO campus in Edmond. *The Scarlet Letter was the January, 2008 production at Stage Center.*
The relocation to downtown Oklahoma City brought a new alliance with Oklahoma City University, which began in 2008. In 2008, OSP started the Jack O’Meara Actors Hall of Fame to recognize the many actors who have meant so much to OSP’s evolution.
The 2008 summer season productions were Much Ado About Nothing, The Three Musketeers and Richard III, again performed in repertory as in 2007.  A Christmas Carol was again presented that winter, this time as a touring production only.
*OSP staged Julius Caesar at Stage Center in January of 2009.*
In 2009, OSP staged its 25th Anniversary season at the Myriad Gardens with productions of As You Like It, Shaw’s Misalliance, Hamlet and Twelfth Night. A special gala performance of The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged) at the Civic Center Music Hall capped the celebration.
A Flood, a Renovation, and a Bright Future
In the spring of 2010, as part of its ever-growing alliance, OSP and Oklahoma City University co-produced a production of Romeo and Juliet at the University. This marked the end of OSP’s long tradition of staging one show at Stage Center every winter.
*In June of 2010, a flash flood all but destroyed the interior of Oklahoma City’s Stage Center, including OSP’s office. Allied Arts arranged for a temporary office, and OSP eventually relocated to the Fred Jones building on Main Street in west downtown Oklahoma City.
*

History - Oklahoma Shakespeare in the Park

----------


## Just the facts

> The Crystal Bridge and Myriad Botanical Gardens don't make money. Neither does the Oklahoma City Museum of Art. Should we tear them all down? Public Libraries? The Fred Jones Jr. Art Museum at OU? Admission is free. I sincerely doubt that the attractions at Riversport make profit, especially compared to what it took to build them.
> 
> The idea that the litmus test for what exists in a city is whether or not it makes money for someone is laughable, and ridiculous. If that were the case, what an absolutely horrible place that would be to live in.


The problem is that all those non-profit buildings have things for people to do inside them.  If Stage Center was fixed up who would use it?  They asked the Arts community in OKC and all of them said, "Count us out".  Is it supposed to just be a very expensive sculpture?

On the other hand, I'll bet the those places you listed could come up with a study that say they contribute millions to the local economy.

On edit - wouldn't you know it....

http://www.arts.ok.gov/pdf/about_us/...FullReport.pdf




> The Economic Impact of Nonprofit Arts and Culture Organizations
> in Oklahoma
> 
> This study provides compelling new evidence that the nonprofit arts and culture are a significant
> industry in the State of Oklahoma—one that generates $314.8 million in local economic activity.
> This spending–$176.5 million by nonprofit arts and culture organizations and an additional $138.3
> million in event-related spending by their audiences—supports 10,156 full-time equivalent jobs,
> generates $211 million in household income to local residents, and delivers $29.4 million in local and
> state government revenue. This economic impact study sends a strong signal that when we support the
> ...

----------


## Spartan

> There should have been a fourth option; "don't tear it down yet, use denial of a demolition permit to force a different level of redevelopment of that location."
> 
> On this board THAT is what is driving the no votes and skewing the numbers. There are few actual advocates of preservation for the sake of preservation here.


Yeah we should re-do this poll. I'm just surprised 61 people could support such a strongly and negatively worded "tear it down" statement

----------


## shawnw

Feel free. I was looking for a specific angle.

----------


## zookeeper

> The problem is that all those non-profit buildings have things for people to do inside them.  If Stage Center was fixed up who would use it?  They asked the Arts community in OKC and all of them said, "Count us out".  Is it supposed to just be a very expensive sculpture?
> 
> On the other hand, I'll bet the those places you listed could come up with a study that say they contribute millions to the local economy.
> 
> On edit - wouldn't you know it....
> 
> http://www.arts.ok.gov/pdf/about_us/...FullReport.pdf


You, of all people, should be sick of hearing "count us out." When people don't understand you, it's frustrating. First of all, not everyone said, "Count us out." This is why I keep talking about imagination and possibilities. I do not have the answers to all the questions. I only know the answer to one question and I believe that this structure deserves to stand for many more years and serve in a capacity *we maybe haven't even thought of yet*. 

If anyone hasn't seen the film with John Johansen explaining his thought process on the theater, please go back a few posts and watch it. It's only ten minutes and I think sometimes people learn to appreciate things when they understand its genesis. Clearly, there's no turning around several here, but even they should see the short explanation concerning the "hamster tubes and boxes." It's a must-see ten minutes if you really want to understand this building. For better or worse.

----------


## mkjeeves

> Yeah we should re-do this poll. I'm just surprised 61 people could support such a strongly and negatively worded "tear it down" statement


It's as valuable as any other OKCTalk poll. It and $5 will get you a cup of coffee in some places.

----------


## shawnw

Exactly

----------


## Urbanized

> The problem is that all those non-profit buildings have things for people to do inside them.  If Stage Center was fixed up who would use it?  They asked the Arts community in OKC and all of them said, "Count us out".  Is it supposed to just be a very expensive sculpture?


First of all, that's not accurate. Not all arts organizations hate it. We have seen evidence of those conflicted feelings in this very forum. The same with people who have patronized shows there, although overwhelmingly THEY tend to have positive feelings for it. Secondly - more than anything else - none of the arts groups want to be tasked with fixing and/or maintaining it. Third, those organizations all currently have corporate and individual sponsors, some of whom likely "encouraged" them to give the controversy a wide berth. There is an influential contingent who wants the building gone.

The arts groups are frightened of it, as it sits, and have a difficult time imagining it not being a millstone around their respective necks. If a champion appeared out of thin air, one who would fund the renovation and long-term maintenance of the building, someone who would turn it into a showpiece, and who would guarantee to help fund their organizations, they would likely fall all over themselves in lining up to be tenants. Or if they didn't, other organizations would appear as if by magic, I promise you.

With that said, such a benefactor obviously does not exist in this community. I don't have another solution. It is even doubtful that another exists. Therefore, as I have mentioned DOZENS of times here, I have come to accept the fact that it is coming down. I am not advocating preservation; just wishing it had happened, and that the building had been given more attention through the years. I'm not sure why you are spending so much time trying to convince me to think differently. I'm resigned to its destruction. You win.

We are the teenager who inherited a sputtering, rusty, rare and classic sports car from our parents, who themselves did a lousy job of taking care of it. We can't wait for it to die - even if we have to go out and wreck it ourselves - so that we can go get a shiny new 4x4 pickup.

COULD it be saved? Sure. It would take effort. And money. Would it be worth saving? It depends upon what your value system is, obviously. My personal value system says "yes," but I am in a very small minority. Will it be saved? Nope. Destined for the scrap heap, the moment they handed us the keys.

----------


## jccouger

> The problem is that all those non-profit buildings have things for people to do inside them.  If Stage Center was fixed up who would use it?  They asked the Arts community in OKC and all of them said, "Count us out".  Is it supposed to just be a very expensive sculpture?
> 
> On the other hand, I'll bet the those places you listed could come up with a study that say they contribute millions to the local economy.
> 
> On edit - wouldn't you know it....
> 
> http://www.arts.ok.gov/pdf/about_us/...FullReport.pdf


So what you are trying to say is...

Eventually the Stage Center could become profitable, just as our other arts developments are? Excellent news!

----------


## Urbanized

> ...On the other hand, I'll bet the those places you listed could come up with a study that say they contribute millions to the local economy.
> 
> On edit - wouldn't you know it....
> 
> http://www.arts.ok.gov/pdf/about_us/...FullReport.pdf


Haha you're only making my argument for me. JTF, it's OK to say that you simply don't like Stage Center.

----------


## OKVision4U

> Yeah we should re-do this poll. I'm just surprised 61 people could support such a strongly and negatively worded "tear it down" statement


I think we have our answer.  It may not be the answer a small % of you are hoping for.  With 77% of the vote using the strong definition "Tear It Down", it must be heard.  One note in that vote too, this OKCtalk is a great sample of ( active minded people ) w/ civic hearts.

This structure just "isn't" that piece of history in our city or state.

----------


## jccouger

Remember that one time when everybody thought tearing down the Biltmore hotel was a great idea. Obviously nobody does....

----------


## OKVision4U

> Remember that one time when everybody thought tearing down the Biltmore hotel was a great idea. Obviously nobody does....


This is NOT the Biltmore.  If it was, we would save it today.  This is not the same OKC of the 60s / 70s / 80's...the city is ON-BOARD w/ preservation.  The Stage Center just isn't that piece of history.

----------


## Garin

> Remember that one time when everybody thought tearing down the Biltmore hotel was a great idea. Obviously nobody does....


. 

That place is a dump it should have been rehabbed or dozed by now.

----------


## Urbanized

How do you feel about the Marion Hotel?

----------


## Dubya61

> The problem is that all those non-profit buildings have things for people to do inside them.  If Stage Center was fixed up who would use it?  They asked the Arts community in OKC and all of them said, "Count us out".





> First of all, that's not accurate. Not all arts organizations hate it.


"Count us out" does not equal hate.  It simply means, No, that's not a venue we would choose to use.



> The arts groups are frightened of it, as it sits, and have a difficult time imagining it not being a millstone around their respective necks. If a champion appeared out of thin air, one who would fund the renovation and long-term maintenance of the building, someone who would turn it into a showpiece, and who would guarantee to help fund their organizations, they would likely fall all over themselves in lining up to be tenants. Or if they didn't, other organizations would appear as if by magic, I promise you.


Don't take this as a challenge, but who?  Who would want to use the Mummers Theater?

----------


## mkjeeves

Opening Night 2009 (A few months before the flood) 

Venue 3 – Stage Center

Arena Theatre

Everybody & Their Dog: 7:30, 8:30, 9:30

Tolbert Theatre

Edgar Cruz: 7, 8, 9, 10
Opening Night 2009 schedule | News OK

Similar to many other Opening Nights.

----------


## Garin

> How do you feel about the Marion Hotel?


Where it is located it makes more since to rehab and reconstruct.

----------


## Just the facts

> Remember that one time when everybody thought tearing down the Biltmore hotel was a great idea. Obviously nobody does....


The low ceiling heights and plumbing built into the concrete would have made the Biltmore impossible to renovate into anything usable by modern regulations.  The site became part of MBG.  Sometime architects just out-think themselves and create structures that can't be used for anything else ever.  I wish they wouldn't do it - but they do.

----------


## MustangGT

> . 
> 
> That place is a dump it should have been rehabbed or dozed by now.


Agreed.

----------


## Just the facts

> Haha you're only making my argument for me. JTF, it's OK to say that you simply don't like Stage Center.


I don't like Stage Center.

----------


## Just the facts

> So what you are trying to say is...
> 
> Eventually the Stage Center could become profitable, just as our other arts developments are? Excellent news!


No, I am saying you get someone to produce an economic report that says anything you want it to say.

----------


## Urbanized

Much like a feasibility report. A la Central Park Film Exchange or Sand Ridge campus demolitions. Come on, JTF. You're too smart to believe and regurgitate everything just because you see it in print.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

> The low ceiling heights and plumbing built into the concrete would have made the Biltmore impossible to renovate into anything usable by modern regulations.  The site became part of MBG.  Sometime architects just out-think themselves and create structures that can't be used for anything else ever.  I wish they wouldn't do it - but they do.

----------


## UnFrSaKn

Pros & Cons: Stage Center's future takes center stage
http://m.newsok.com/pros-cons-stage-...rticle/3923845

Supporters seek to save Oklahoma City's Stage Center
http://m.newsok.com/supporters-seek-...rticle/3923846

----------


## Of Sound Mind

See, this still fascinates me. If this "landmark" is so beloved, why has it been so woefully neglected for so many years? If it is so beloved, why haven't its fanatics dedicated more effort to supporting it tangibly (with necessary financial resources and improvements)? If it's so precious, why has it taken its impending doom to get any measurable action/reaction?

Actions speak louder than words — in other words, the lack of effectual action in this "precious" landmark's recent history speaks much louder than the lamenting since the announcement of the property's sale months back.

----------


## HangryHippo

I really don't care to see it saved because I find the building to be hideous.  It has absolutely nothing to do with not enjoying unique things.  The building is just flat ugly and I would like to see something more attractive there.  It looks like we have a proposal for something more attractive so it can be razed.

However, that all being said, shame on Williams for not selecting one of the multitude of vacant lots that dot our downtown landscape.

----------


## coov23

> See, this still fascinates me. If this "landmark" is so beloved, why has it been so woefully neglected for so many years? If it is so beloved, why haven't its fanatics dedicated more effort to supporting it tangibly (with necessary financial resources and improvements)? If it's so precious, why has it taken its impending doom to get any measurable action/reaction?
> 
> Actions speak louder than words — in other words, the lack of effectual action in this "precious" landmark's recent history speaks much louder than the lamenting since the announcement of the property's sale months back.


It's easy. Those that want it saved want our money to save it. Even if we don't like the building. The few far out weigh the many. If you haven't learned that in this PC world, you never will. I dint want my tax money going to that building. It already costs a 100k a month just to keep hobos out. How much will it cost to reconstruct and up keep? Far too much, in my opinion. Heck, I live art. That building just isn't art to me. It's an eye site that needs to go.

----------


## Bellaboo

I've seen this said a lot -




> However, that all being said, shame on Williams for not *selecting one of the multitude of vacant lots that dot our downtown landscape*.


This is all about location. If any lot would have worked, he'd gone elsewhere, and probably pay a smaller price with much less trouble.....

The equivolent location would be just to the South of California on this block.

----------


## jccouger

The ENTIRE issue is the location.




> See, this still fascinates me. If this "landmark" is so beloved, why has it been so woefully neglected for so many years?


So many years = 3 years????

----------


## coov23

> The ENTIRE issue is the location.
> 
> 
> 
> So many years = 3 years????


It's 2014. 5 years. But, before it's restoration in 2009 how long was it ran down?

----------


## mkjeeves

> It already costs a 100k a month just to keep hobos out.


I believe that figure quoted was per year wasn't it? I bet that included property taxes, which might be the majority of it. What else, assuming the utilities have all been shut off, mowing the lawn, replacing a piece of plywood every now and then and some liability insurance if they have any?

----------


## kevinpate

Yeah, the poster writing 100K monthly likely misunderstood something he read. IIRC, that was an annual amount being spent by the Foundation after it was shuttered in 2010.

----------


## shawnw

That's still a lot of cash for a charitable foundation that could use every dollar to burn...  oh well, guess it's Rainey burning it now...

----------


## mkjeeves

It's a ton of cash. Therein lies one of the problems with any art org owning or using any real estate. It can be really expensive.

----------


## Urbanized

> See, this still fascinates me. If this "landmark" is so beloved, why has it been so woefully neglected for so many years? If it is so beloved, why haven't its fanatics dedicated more effort to supporting it tangibly (with necessary financial resources and improvements)? If it's so precious, why has it taken its impending doom to get any measurable action/reaction?
> 
> Actions speak louder than words — in other words, the lack of effectual action in this "precious" landmark's recent history speaks much louder than the lamenting since the announcement of the property's sale months back.


Because there AREN'T any fanatics. For whatever reason, it has never resonated with the community. And there STILL isn't any measurable action. That doesn't mean that the building is not important architecturally; just that it isn't important to the people who matter or could have made a difference in OKC.

----------


## Urbanized

> It's easy. Those that want it saved want our money to save it. Even if we don't like the building. The few far out weigh the many. If you haven't learned that in this PC world, you never will. I dint want my tax money going to that building. It already costs a 100k a month just to keep hobos out. How much will it cost to reconstruct and up keep? Far too much, in my opinion. Heck, I live art. That building just isn't art to me. It's an eye site that needs to go.


Where has anyone seriously suggested using tax dollars to preserve it? Way to try to turn it red/blue political. And if you think it costs $100K a month to keep the hobos out, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Whether you or I think it is an important building architecturally doesn't really make any difference, by the way. Sorry to disappoint you. That issue was decided by the American Institute of Architects and the Museum of Modern Art 40 years ago.

If you insist on talking about art - though I would point out that this is not art, it is architecture - like I have pointed out previously, Warhol's works were hated by many contemporaries, and still disliked by many. Most of the French Impressionists were initially reviled in the Paris Salons of their day, and some died penniless. A century later, most people finally have an appreciation for what they were trying to create. Parents and critics alike hated Elvis. They burned his records publicly. It was just offensive noise, right? The Devil's music? Huckleberry Finn has been banned in some school systems in the United States during our own lifetimes. Whether or not an occasional person or even a lot of people dislike something doesn't render it worthless or unimportant; I'm sorry. Again, your opinion (and mine) make little difference here.

But, AGAIN, the ultimate decision-making power resided with the community over the past 40 years, and the community has been pretty resolute in deciding that they didn't REALLY want it here. So it comes down.

----------


## Just the facts

> Yeah, the poster writing 100K monthly likely misunderstood something he read. IIRC, that was an annual amount being spent by the Foundation after it was shuttered in 2010.


Truth be told - the building opened and closed several times over its life span.  It has not been in continual use from 1971 to 2010.

The History and Downfall of Stage Center | KOSU Radio

----------


## Just the facts

> Originally Posted by Just the facts
> 
> 
> The low ceiling heights and plumbing built into the concrete would have made the Biltmore impossible to renovate into anything usable by modern regulations.  The site became part of MBG.  Sometime architects just out-think themselves and create structures that can't be used for anything else ever.  I wish they wouldn't do it - but they do.


That was almost a direct quote from Steve who asked several developers if the Biltmore was around today would it be viable for redevelopment.  The answer was no.

Found the story - you can read it for yourself.

http://newsok.com/looking-back-at-th...rticle/3470180

----------


## mkjeeves

From the article:




> But the Oklahoma Theatre Center didn’t make it either, and the building again closed in the eighties.


Many things in OKC closed in the oil bust of the '80s.

Closings:

Mummers went broke. 

Oil Bust.

Flood. 

Did that miss anything?

----------


## Just the facts

> From the article:
> 
> 
> 
> Many things in OKC closed in the oil bust of the '80s.
> 
> Closings:
> 
> Mummers went broke. 
> ...


That might about sum it up.  It would be interesting to know if it has been closed more years than it has been open.  My guess is that it has been open more years but I'll bet it is close.

----------


## mkjeeves

Up thread I gave you a list where performances were held there every year for the last couple of decades leading up to the flood. A couple of lists actually. I know you and some people want to think it was empty and abandoned for years but that's a false picture. It was not used to full potential, like something going on there constantly in the performance spaces year round, day after day. It has been used regularly.

I don't think that says as much about the architecture as it says about support and appetite for some of the arts in OKC over time.

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

> That was almost a direct quote from Steve who asked several developers if the Biltmore was around today would it be viable for redevelopment.  The answer was no.
> 
>  Found the story - you can read it for yourself.
> 
> Looking Back at the Biltmore Hotel | News OK


 You and I apparently read that article differently.

“Huge challenges” =/= “Impossible”.

The facepalm was mainly on the 2nd part of the post anyways...

----------


## shawnw

At 600 rooms, it might have made a nice convention center hotel, and it would have been in the right location!    :-P

----------


## CuatrodeMayo

> At 600 rooms, it might have made a nice convention center hotel, and it would have been in the right location!    :-P


Probably 400 rooms after modernization, but yea.

----------


## OkieNate

> You and I apparently read that article differently.
> 
> “Huge challenges” =/= “Impossible”.


Ditto

----------


## OkieNate

> At 600 rooms, it might have made a nice convention center hotel, and it would have been in the right location!    :-P


Off topic but my dream is for Marriott, to build a JW Marriott, as a Biltmore replica! How amazing would that be?!

----------


## Dubya61

> Off topic but my dream is for Marriott, to build a JW Marriott, as a Biltmore replica! How amazing would that be?!


It would be "folly" to build a replica!  JK -- dream on.

----------


## shawnw

> Off topic but my dream is for Marriott, to build a JW Marriott, as a Biltmore replica! How amazing would that be?!


As cool as it would be to have a Biltmore replica downtown somewhere, it probably wouldn't fit in with a modern CC design and being next to the arena, effectively in the "new" part of downtown at that point.

----------


## Just the facts

> You and I apparently read that article differently.
> 
> “Huge challenges” =/= “Impossible”.
> 
> The facepalm was mainly on the 2nd part of the post anyways...


Fair enough.

----------


## OkieNate

> As cool as it would be to have a Biltmore replica downtown somewhere, it probably wouldn't fit in with a modern CC design and being next to the arena, effectively in the "new" part of downtown at that point.


I wasn't suggesting it be the CC hotel, just a general pipe dream haha, I think it'd best fit in, in Bricktown. I want an Omni or W for the CC hotel.

----------


## Urbanized

> It would be "folly" to build a replica!  JK -- dream on.


No, it would be folly to build an exact replica from scratch of something that didn't work in the first place or that likely wouldn't work today. A brick-for-brick rebuild of the Biltmore, with the exact same low ceilings and small rooms that would in turn guarantee failure or at the very least extreme challenges? Folly. Rebuilding an exact replica of a performing arts center that has failed to attract and maintain a tenant, an audience and benefactor(s)? Folly. Adaptive re-use of an existing structure, including reconfiguration to meet modern needs (a la Skirvin)? Smart. Too bad it didn't happen with the Biltmore. Wish it could happen with Stage Center, but that is unlikely.

Now, a new, modern hotel with design flourishes that pay tribute to a once-nearby but now gone historic structure? There's nothing wrong with that. The ballpark in Bricktown is a reasonably good example of this. However, HP guidelines would tell you that attempting to make it indistinguishable from the historic is not recommended. A building is either historic, or it is not.

If we built a new performing arts center someday and the architect wanted to make a few stylistic nods to Stage Center? Great. Admirable, even. But rebuilding an exact replica of a demolished Stage Center = silly.

----------

