Why would there be a public expense to tearing it down? Sell the land and let the new owner tear it down.

Saying brutalism is important in the scheme of architectural art and to be saved at all costs to the public is like saying polyester nehru jackets are important fashion statements. Just my humble opinion.

Saving Stage Center
AIA chapter starts effort to revive landmark
By Brianna Bailey
Journal Record
Oklahoma City reporter - Contact 405-278-2847
Posted: 08:36 PM Wednesday, December 21, 2011

OKLAHOMA CITY – Although much of downtown’s Stage Center was gutted after being ravaged by a flood last year, the Central Oklahoma Chapter of the American Institute of Architects is willing to arrange tours of the iconic theater lit only by flashlight for potential investors who see a future for the building.

The AIA chapter issued a request for proposals this week to revive the vacant theater building, which is owned by the Oklahoma City Community Foundation.

“We are open to anything, but we want to preserve this iconic building,” said Melissa Hunt, executive director of the Central Oklahoma Chapter of the AIA. “But it needs to be somebody that can come in and keep it open, keep it operational and running financially.”

Hunt said she believes the building doesn’t lend itself to being revived as a theater, but rather envisions some sort of adaptive reuse.

A survey of arts and theater groups earlier this year found that no such local organization had the resources or desire to tackle renovating and maintaining the building.

Situated on about 2.7-acres of land on Sheridan Avenue between Hudson and Walker avenues, the Stage Center complex is on a prime corner, across the street from where Devon Energy Corp. is building its $750 million corporate headquarters and adjacent to the newly renovated Myriad Gardens.

Some have even suggested that the land is more valuable than the aging theater that sits on it, but AIA hopes to preserve the building as an important part of the city’s architectural heritage, Hunt said.

“We hope to get some interest through the RFP – otherwise the building could be lost,” she said. “We feel like the building is one of those buildings that you either love or hate, but it is certainly a conversational piece and we certainly feel it’s important for it to remain.”

The theater building was designed by John M. Johansen, a student of architects Walter Gropius and Frank Lloyd Wright. It is considered one of Johansen’s most influential buildings. The AIA awarded Stage Center its prestigious American Institute of Architects National Honor Award in 1972.

The building sustained extensive flood damage after heavy rains in June 2010. Much of its heating, cooling and ventilation systems had to be removed. There is also is no electricity in the theater. Mostly concrete, the theater remains structurally sound, however.

Because of the extensive damage to the building and cost of repairs, the Arts Council of Oklahoma City transferred ownership of Stage Center back to the Oklahoma City Community Foundation after the flood. The foundation already owned the land the theater sits on.

“We didn’t ask for it, we just inherited it,” said Nancy Anthony, executive director for the Oklahoma City Community Foundation.

It costs the foundation more than $100,000 in upkeep per year just to maintain the building in its present shape, keep the grass mown and make sure the insurance premiums are paid, Anthony said.

While the foundation would like to see the building preserved, it lacks the resources to revive Stage Center itself and has more of a responsibility to fund the community organizations it serves, Anthony said.

The AIA Central Oklahoma Chapter will accept written proposals for redeveloping Stage Center through Feb. 29. Proposals will then be evaluated by the AIA, Urban Land Institute and the Oklahoma City Community Foundation.

The community foundation will have the final say in any redevelopment plans, and does not have to accept any of the proposals if it doesn’t find any suitable uses for the building, Anthony said.

I've never liked this building. I'd like to see some fireworks set off inside the building, then knock it down with a bulldozer. Set the pile of crap on fire and burn it to the ground, then bulldoze it some more. Haul the remains over to the American Indian Cultural Center and dump it inside that pile of dirt, then bulldoze that, too.

There's an annual cost of $100K to maintain a rotting, empty, concrete shell of a building - all in the name of architectural sophistry? I'm sorry to offend supporters of the building, but that's an asinine waste of resources.

When the relevant groups that might have interest in restoring the building to its original use - as a theater - express their inability to participate in a renovation, when the current owner offers they "didn't ask" for the building and find it a competitor for resources among more compelling needs, and that the building on which the land sits is more valuable than the building itself, there needs to be a realization that the time has come to raze the building.

I know this will probably get me flamed, and that's fine, but at some point its time to wave the white flag. This is a flood-damaged forty-year-old building, with no utilities, and no apparent useful purpose, except to serve as a monument to a small class of individuals to an aesthetic end. I don't see how that benefits anyone. If that makes me some sort of myopic neanderthal in the eyes of some, I guess there's nothing I can do about it.

Id like to see a quality midrise condo building go right there. Especially overlooking the park.

^^I also would like that,but I would not want it tore down unless a developer commited to a project on this site!

Putting out an RFP for possible development partners was announced in September and when I saw on the Save the Stage Center website that they were almost ready, I didn't realize they meant the RFP was almost ready to release and that they haven't even solicited proposals yet.

Maybe they just want to be able to say they tried so it will provide cover for the yet be announced Nichols Tower.

Which I would not be opposed to.

This is all being driven by the local chapter of the American Institute of Architects who sincerely want the place saved.

The current owner (OKC Foundation) seems indifferent about the whole thing primarily because they realize it's going to take a ton of money and it's hard to imagine who is going to come up with it.

Since we're wishin' here, Let's shoot for the moon......Chesapeake locate an international headquarters on that site........

I wouldn't mind seeing something like the W Hotel in Austin. The development takes up the whole block. It includes a studio theater for Austin City Limits that seats several hundred, a children's museum, and parking. The tower includes the hotel and condos. Corporate headquarters similar to Devon's for a company new to OKC would be nice too.

I wouldn't mind seeing something like the W Hotel in Austin. The development takes up the whole block. It includes a studio theater for Austin City Limits that seats several hundred, a children's museum, and parking. The tower includes the hotel and condos. Corporate headquarters similar to Devon's for a company new to OKC would be nice too.

This idea is just as viable as anything that will come out of the RFP process.

Okay did Stage Center sell to a group of attorneys just recently ??

http://i915.photobucket.com/albums/ac357/golem_phtos/stuff/1d249c7e.jpg


Thanks, OkC! I have a trove of things related to this unfortunate time in this city's history.

I wouldn't mind seeing something like the W Hotel in Austin. The development takes up the whole block. It includes a studio theater for Austin City Limits that seats several hundred, a children's museum, and parking. The tower includes the hotel and condos. Corporate headquarters similar to Devon's for a company new to OKC would be nice too.

Not to single anyone out, but I see this post being very symptomatic of an overarching theme when it comes to the general populace and downtown development. Why are people incapable of generating ideas that are site-specific? I imagine the above poster would think these are great ideas for well, any block in downtown...

I would recommend them for blocks that do not currently have buildings, especially nice (or at least interesting) buildings on it. The thing is that there is such an incredible amount of vacant land left downtown. Density will never improve if development doesn't start going around existing buildings, rather than tearing them down. This city needs to evolve its thinking and develop a strategy for density and otherwise good urban planning (including all of the positive side benefits of density).

I have beef with that too. Makes no sense to me to tear down structures when we have so many empty lots and surface parking downtown.

OKC Central: Plan is sought to keep OKC landmark from exiting stage left (http://newsok.com/okc-central-plan-is-sought-to-keep-okc-landmark-from-exiting-stage-left/article/3640891#ixzz1jgOLbvYj)

BY STEVE LACKMEYER slackmeyer@opubco.com
Published: January 17, 2012

If Stage Center ends up coming down, one won't be able to say the city's architectural community didn't take its best shot at finding a savior.

I hope March 1st brings news of its demise...

no message.

I hope March 1st brings news of its demise...

And I hope you're wrong.

I hope March 1st brings news of its demise...

Right on. Get rid of those hippies and Beatles too! :dizzy:

I can't believe that my post was deleted because it was hardly inflammatory, so I'm going to go ahead and repost it with more context this time..

OKCisOK4me: What if a lot of us on here (who are OU fans first-most) said that we hope March 1st brings news of OSU's demise? I see that as being a pretty equal statement. Here we take one institution, and a bunch of buildings that you probably like, and hope for them to go away. What are those buildings and that institution doing to hurt us? Nothing, in fact they're providing a great education to some people. What is the Stage Center doing to hurt you? Nothing, as far as I know (did you stub your toe once there or something?), and in fact it can be an invaluable cultural resource for our community because of its uniqueness.

The Stage Center is an asset that should be cherished, just like OSU should be cherished even by OU fans (and people who know me do know that I have a lot of personal respect and connections to OSU). In an ideal world, March 1st would bring news of neither's demise. I like architecture and urban planning, a lot of people do. You like OSU, as do a few dozen other people I suppose. It's difficult to argue that these are bad things to keep having, other than strategic reasons like bottom line.

Yeah, Stage Center is on prime real estate, so are City Hall and the Skirvin I suppose, so let's tear those ugly unique buildings down, too. OSU could be folded into OU, which could then finally join the ranks of "Public Ivies" like Wisky or CU (we all know having too many small colleges is a problem dragging down the main universities in this state).

But you know what, let's have our cake and eat it too. There is intrinsic value to these things that exist, and no reason to get rid of them. Yes, they are expensive. Yes, some people don't like them. Boo hoo. It's called being part of society. Parisians almost universally reviled the Georges Pompidou Centre, yet today, it has slowly grown on them and now it is one of France's most popular pieces of post modernist architecture. My grandma just got back from France and couldn't stop bickering to anyone who would listen about what that evil French government has done to Paris and what an ugly building that is, but who cares, what matters is that Parisians love the building today.

http://0.tqn.com/d/goparis/1/0/W/-/-/-/IMG_0744.JPG
And like it or not, it's hard to argue that it isn't meaningful architecture, just like the Stage Center. This is the kind of stuff that is priceless all because someone took the time to make a bold, unique statement. Johansen could have just given us a boilerplate PAC, and it would have been loved by all upon completion and today we'd be tearing it down because of how hideous architecture from the 1960s was. But thankfully Johansen sought to do something bigger and didn't cave to corporatist pressures that have always been kingpin in this city. So in this sense, not only is the Stage Center worthwhile architecture, but it is also a monument to the audacity of true art.

If it hadn't pissed Stanley Draper off, it wouldn't be doing its job.

Parisians almost universally reviled the Georges Pompidou Centre, yet today, it has slowly grown on them and now it is one of France's most popular pieces of post modernist architecture. My grandma just got back from France and couldn't stop bickering to anyone who would listen about what that evil French government has done to Paris and what an ugly building that is, but who cares, what matters is that Parisians love the building today.

A little off topic but my wife just came back from Paris on Monday and said the exact same thing yesterday. Weird.

That's just the American in Paris syndrome. Americans, truly a unique breed of world travelers, expect every place to be some idealistic Hobbit Hole Bagend village and are soooo put off when, compared to our native built environment, something looks to be from the year 2100.

She was actually indifferent about the building, she just made the comment the Parisians hated it but it has now grown on them. She said the same thing you said, not what your grandma said.

Ah, sorry now I follow. They also hate this (but not as passionately as ten years ago):

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-s15suCOz3Y4/Taps5EXsMLI/AAAAAAAAACQ/k4_NPkcd45s/s1600/blog+louvre.jpg

The Louvre addition is definitely following a very similar pattern. When it was built ten years ago, Parisians would walk up to it and spit in the water feature surrounding it. Now they still dislike it by about a 60/40 margin. The difference is that they're not shrouding it with landscaping that is intentionally ugly and unorganized, like how Stanley Draper covered it with very unadvisable flora species only organized in a manner to cover up certain angles of the building (the view from the Union Bus Station specifically).

It's amazing how a shockingly bold piece of architecture will gradually grow on people when people like Stanley Draper aren't behind the scenes preventing what is otherwise inevitable.

Can you imagine if instead of some really ugly cedars, Stanley Draper had instead decided to improve the Stage Center grounds with some dramatic fountains? Even he would have eventually fallen in love with the building.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6129/5987889922_e4e4796e22.jpg
My goodness. What a treasure we are about to lose.

I like the Cedars, why are you calling them ugly and want them removed? Imagine if I said I want Calagary to go away.

Did you see what I did there? I took your logic and used it against you. That is a sure sign you have a flawed arguement. And comparing Stage Center to the Louvre is a huge huge huge stretch. The only redeeming quality with Stage Center is an award from 1972. Who knows, maybe it will be replaced by a building that wins an award in 2015.

I like the Cedars, why are you calling them ugly and want them removed? Imagine if I said I want Calagary to go away.

Did you see what I did there? I took your logic and used it against you. That is a sure sign you have a flawed arguement. And comparing Stage Center to the Louvre is a huge huge huge stretch. .

Don't agree. What Spartan is saying is that it is the fundamental fear of the unknown and unfamiliar that is at play here. Be it Paris or OKC, these are truly unique buildings that have made a mark in their respective cities. I would like to propose that we, not just OKC, but everyone in the USA, begin to look at the medium to long term and how we can integrate parts of our history into our future, instead of just categorically sweeping things aside when they are no longer attractive, ostensibly useful, or crowd pleasing.

Kerry, surely you realize that he is comparing the Stage Center to the pyramid entrance built in front of the Louvre. It's interesting that he brought up the Pompidou Centre though. I brought up the same comparison quite some time ago.

I like the Cedars, why are you calling them ugly and want them removed? Imagine if I said I want Calagary to go away.

Well, here's the thing. We can have cedars. It would be cheap and easy to replant some cedars along a defined periphery. In fact, I can see in my head a way to use skinny cedars along the edge of the block and other similar shrubs, replace the grass with rocks or something that doesn't require watering, to do some innovative xeriscaping (P180 does this a little bit).

We just don't need bulky, untamed cedars--basically the big and fat type that people in the boondocks tend to plant as windbreakers or for privacy. Those aren't even a contribution to urban shading, which I agree we desperately need.

P.S. I'd definitely get that fear of Canada checked by a professional. As we all know, Canada is like the least scary thing on the planet...

Kerry, surely you realize that he is comparing the Stage Center to the pyramid entrance built in front of the Louvre. It's interesting that he brought up the Pompidou Centre though. I brought up the same comparison quite some time ago.

get it, but the difference is one was hated but usable and the other is hated and unusable and sits on a lot that has a lot more potential than as an abandoned theater. And again, Stage Center is NOT an historic structure - it was built in 1972. It was not a defining feature of anything related to the development of OKC. It is nothing more than some concrete squares connected by colorful walkways. The whole complex could easily be recreated on another lot for pennies on the dollar compared to fixing the current place.

In fact, they could sell the lot and build the exact same building a few blocks away and have enough money left over to fund whatever operation they get from the RFP.

get it, but the difference is one was hated but usable and the other is hated and unusable and sits on a lot that has a lot more potential than as an abandoned theater. And again, Stage Center is NOT an historic structure - it was built in 1972. It was not a defining feature of anything related to the development of OKC. It is nothing more than some concrete squares connected by colorful walkways. The whole complex could easily be recreated on another lot for pennies on the dollar compared to fixing the current place.

In fact, they could sell the lot and build the exact same building a few blocks away and have enough money left over to fund whatever operation they get from the RFP.

this ..

get it, but the difference is one was hated but usable and the other is hated and unusable and sits on a lot that has a lot more potential than as an abandoned theater. And again, Stage Center is NOT an historic structure - it was built in 1972. It was not a defining feature of anything related to the development of OKC. It is nothing more than some concrete squares connected by colorful walkways. The whole complex could easily be recreated on another lot for pennies on the dollar compared to fixing the current place.

In fact, they could sell the lot and build the exact same building a few blocks away and have enough money left over to fund whatever operation they get from the RFP.Again, exactly. If stage center were a sculpture I would be fine with it being there. But it isn't. It's a building. An empty, abandoned building which a few groups have made a go of making work and failed over the years. As such it is a failure in it's intended purpose which is being a building.

I don't like the way Stage Center looks, but there are a lot of buildings downtown that I think are ugly. If someone can make it work financially, then more power to them. However I don't see it as a treasure of the city. If this is something that doesn't work financially, I don't think we need to pour tax dollars into it. We don't need to subsidize a building that will never be profitable.

Again, exactly. If stage center were a sculpture I would be fine with it being there. But it isn't. It's a building. An empty, abandoned building which a few groups have made a go of making work and failed over the years. As such it is a failure in it's intended purpose which is being a building.

Even if was a sculpture - sculptures are moved all the time. So it won an award. Sell the land and rebuild it somewhere else using the original plans.

Not to pick nits, but it was Dolese that paid for the "beautification" by adding the trees (although I'm certain Draper probably hated it too)...

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=22471&page=3&highlight=stage+center

Would be a great location for a new skyscraper!

Would be a great location for a new skyscraper!

Much agreed, be it commercial or residential.

Would be a great location for a new skyscraper!

If this site isn't used for a residential mid-rise or high-rise it should be a crime.

What site wouldn't be a great site for a new skyscraper? Just think of the amount of prime vacant land downtown...

I think 4th and Broadway is a great site for a skyscraper, a cow pasture today. Or Sheridan/Robinson. Or some of these surface parking lots in Bricktown, or hell, ALL over downtown today. Why does a site with an architectural landmark have to be a great site for a skyscraper instead? That makes about as much sense as...well nothing.

And if it can be repurposed in it's current configuration that would be the ideal situation. Tearing it down is not the ideal situation. We need to give it every opportunity to succeed before condemnation.

What site wouldn't be a great site for a new skyscraper? Just think of the amount of prime vacant land downtown...

I think 4th and Broadway is a great site for a skyscraper, a cow pasture today. Or Sheridan/Robinson. Or some of these surface parking lots in Bricktown, or hell, ALL over downtown today. Why does a site with an architectural landmark have to be a great site for a skyscraper instead? That makes about as much sense as...well nothing.

Because it is right next to what could be one of the greatest urban parks in the US. It is the same reason the new convention center needs to go somewhere else and the COX site needs to be redeveloped.

http://www.pps.org/articles/uscanadasquares/

And if it can be repurposed in it's current configuration that would be the ideal situation. Tearing it down is not the ideal situation. We need to give it every opportunity to succeed before condemnation.

Isn't 40 years enough of an opportunity?

What site wouldn't be a great site for a new skyscraper? Just think of the amount of prime vacant land downtown...

I think 4th and Broadway is a great site for a skyscraper, a cow pasture today. Or Sheridan/Robinson. Or some of these surface parking lots in Bricktown, or hell, ALL over downtown today. Why does a site with an architectural landmark have to be a great site for a skyscraper instead? That makes about as much sense as...well nothing.

Because its a dilapidated, unworkable structure that had become a burden to the community to the tune of one million dollars annually. At some point , Spartan, you have to realize it just because you like it doesn't mean the rest of us must.

Because its a dilapidated, unworkable structure that had become a burden to the community to the tune of one million dollars annually. At some point , Spartan, you have to realize it just because you like it doesn't mean the rest of us must.

+1

Isn't 40 years enough of an opportunity?

You beat me to it. It has had way more than enough opportunity to become something, anything that resembles a functioning entity and it has not.

Maybe people haven't thought outside the box enough. Does it have to be a theatre? Some of my favorite buildings are used for things very different from the original intention. I would hate to see Stage Center be replaced by another bland skyscraper just so we can ooh and aah over our skyline, much less some four story office building. Great cities have surprises within them, and I consider Stage Center a visual surprise.

Maybe people haven't thought outside the box enough. Does it have to be a theatre? Some of my favorite buildings are used for things very different from the original intention. I would hate to see Stage Center be replaced by another bland skyscraper just so we can ooh and aah over our skyline, much less some four story office building. Great cities have surprises within them, and I consider Stage Center a visual surprise.

One thing we know 100% for sure - Stage Center will never be a theater again. We will see what, if anything, comes out of the RFP process and how much it is going to cost. Then we can decide if the project is worth the cost and how to pay for it. My guess is that nothing of value will come out of the RFP process and the price tag will be so high it will be a show stopper. However, most of the people who want to keep don't care about that anyhow. I get the impression they don't care how much it cost or if it does anything other than sit there.

Maybe people haven't thought outside the box enough. Does it have to be a theatre? Some of my favorite buildings are used for things very different from the original intention. I would hate to see Stage Center be replaced by another bland skyscraper just so we can ooh and aah over our skyline, much less some four story office building. Great cities have surprises within them, and I consider Stage Center a visual surprise.

IMO... (<---what I'm starting all my posts with from now on or will make it a signature line) Let's put our heads back in the box. Anyone who has maintained this site allowed it to get to the condition it is in today. Can't necessarily put the sole blame on a day we had 10" of rain. Whoever invested in this during the past 40 years allowed it to get to the condition it is in today. If it were such a gem, it would be in pristine condition and we would not be having this discussion. This site will probably end up like the India Temple building that Sandridge tore down.

You beat me to it. It has had way more than enough opportunity to become something, anything that resembles a functioning entity and it has not.

It has at certain junctures of its 40 year existence. That's a really incongruent argument to make though, because historic preservation is always a struggle. The only way to consistently put that into principle is if one is opposed to ALL of the buildings that have been saved in the past few years, like the Skirvin, and all of Bricktown. These are extremely profitable today because someone thought outside the box and abandoned the conventional.

The FNC has had 80 years of opportunity, more than double that of the Stage Center. We all know the vast potential the FNC has to be an incredible urban redevelopment project. Or does it also sit on prime land for a new skyscraper?

Spartan, you said something semi-positive about Bricktown! ;-)

The FNC has had 80 years of opportunity, more than double that of the Stage Center. We all know the vast potential the FNC has to be an incredible urban redevelopment project. Or does it also sit on prime land for a new skyscraper?

The flaw in your arguement is that FNC is being used today and doesn't cost the City $100K a year to keep vagrants out.



like the Skirvin, and all of Bricktown. These are extremely profitable today because someone thought outside the box and abandoned the conventional.


Outside the box, they turned a closed hotel into a open hotel. That is as inside the box as you can get.

JTF, the Skirvin is not a perfect analogy, but it's also not unreasonable. It was closed for 20 years. It was a failing business for years before that. In many places it was open to the elements; you could see sunlight through the roof in places while standing inside. It was a transient squat. And if you knew the power brokers who were itching (and privately advocating) to tear it down, you would wonder how it was ever saved.

The decision to renovate was difficult and much-debated, and plenty of people wrote the paper volunteering to personally swing sledgehammers to hasten the demolition. Somewhere along the line the community decided it was important to the history of the city, and that it should not be torn down. Remains to be seen if the same will happen for Stage Center. Since the community connection to SC in no way approaches the one that the Skirvin had even during its darkest times (appreciation for SC tends to be more intellectual while the Skirvin had an emotional hold on many), I imagine it will be a much tougher field to plow.

All that is good and well Urbanized but no one is trying to return Stage Center to an operating theater. That was the only point I was making. I am content to wait for the RFPs before we do the RIPs. In fact, I am perfectly happy to let the existing structure sit there for an other 20 years if that is how long it take to get a redevelopment proposal for the site. The eixisting strucutre is better than a vacant lot (but just barely).

Isn't 40 years enough of an opportunity?

Not if opportunities are currently being actively pursued. I know you just don't like the appearance of the building but that's not sufficient reason for it's destruction. If nothing comes of the current activities I won't argue with you so much even if I still love the building.

All that is good and well Urbanized but no one is trying to return Stage Center to an operating theater. That was the only point I was making. I am content to wait for the RFPs before we do the RIPs. In fact, I am perfectly happy to let the existing structure sit there for an other 20 years if that is how long it take to get a redevelopment proposal for the site. The eixisting strucutre is better than a vacant lot (but just barely).

Kerry, I know you are above the use-specific argument. I remember reading many of your own posts detailing your disregard for specific land uses, that your own urbanism doctrine is more form-specific rather. I agree with your urbanism doctrine, in those cases, and also in this case.

Another positive remark regarding Bricktown coming in 3....2.....

Not if opportunities are currently being actively pursued. I know you just don't like the appearance of the building but that's not sufficient reason for it's destruction. If nothing comes of the current activities I won't argue with you so ven if I still love the building.

I think I've made my position on that building quite clear. There comes a time when we have to recognize that some things are no longer worth saving, and that time has clearly been reached for this facility. The current RFP effort is the very essence of putting lipstick on a pig

This thread is another example of where the words, "in my opinion" might be useful as well. In my opinion, Stage Center is a unique, iconic building that adds a lot of individuality to our city. It's another building that makes me smile when I come upon it on walks or when driving. If I were a visitor, I think I would see it as a very interesting counterpoint to a pretty bland downtown. It borders a park, which makes its whimsy appropo. It will be adjacent to a grade school, and to me, it mimics playground equipment. I would love to see it used, but at this point in time, it's a very interesting sculpture and I would hate to see it replaced with another bland structure. That's my opinion.

This thread is another example of where the words, "in my opinion" might be useful as well. In my opinion, Stage Center is a unique, iconic building that adds a lot of individuality to our city. It's another building that makes me smile when I come upon it on walks or when driving. If I were a visitor, I think I would see it as a very interesting counterpoint to a pretty bland downtown. It borders a park, which makes its whimsy appropo. It will be adjacent to a grade school, and to me, it mimics playground equipment. I would love to see it used, but at this point in time, it's a very interesting sculpture and I would hate to see it replaced with another bland structure. That's my opinion.

What if it was moved/rebuilt to another location?