In my opinion, Stage Center belongs at the zoo and should have monkeys playing in it. But that's just my opinion.

In my opinion, Stage Center belongs at the zoo and should have monkeys playing in it. But that's just my opinion.

Actual location withstanding, that is not a bad idea. I was thinking of having it at the new central park and maybe actually turning it into playground equipment or making it available for rental. The money from selling the land would be more than enough to pay for reconstruction from original plans and the City already owns the land it would be moving to.

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...

I thought Koalas were the least scary thing on the planet.

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.



Agree with all of that, and I would much prefer to keep it too. But if there is no economical use for it, what are we to do with it? Are you willing to pay $1 Million a year to keep it as a sculpture?

I thought Koalas were the least scary thing on the planet.

A mama Koala bear can be frightening indeed, but that's not something you'll find in Canada. And there's no reason to fear what you will actually find:
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTeX1-OtjgM7Y7r9U8cw1Kmueun0ADte7QOhs4v1jYWx1eNAub_

I think that an appropriate use of the building is as the "OKC Creativity Center / Institute". The theater areas could be turned into lecture and show areas with other areas being labs/work areas. Topics could be unlimited. Line up a program of creative speakers/instructors. It could be used for all ages, school events, corporate events, etc. It is a creative building, use it as that. Use the unusual energy of the building as an advantage. Use it for something that could get sponsorship from a variety of entities and use by a wider spectrum.

A mama Koala bear can be frightening indeed, but that's not something you'll find in Canada. And there's no reason to fear what you will actually find:
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTeX1-OtjgM7Y7r9U8cw1Kmueun0ADte7QOhs4v1jYWx1eNAub_

He's welcoming you too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sekLEG8xsOs

I think that an appropriate use of the building is as the "OKC Creativity Center / Institute". The theater areas could be turned into lecture and show areas with other areas being labs/work areas. Topics could be unlimited. Line up a program of creative speakers/instructors. It could be used for all ages, school events, corporate events, etc. It is a creative building, use it as that. Use the unusual energy of the building as an advantage. Use it for something that could get sponsorship from a variety of entities and use by a wider spectrum.

Great idea! And the money for operations and maintenance comes from... ??

I really hope they find a use in this building. I remember going many times back in Middle school for fields trips, I was always amazed at the creative nature of the building.

Great idea! And the money for operations and maintenance comes from... ??
Sponsorships and functions. Better to spread the cost over several than ask a single entity to underwrite it or to ask the taxpayers to shoulder the whole burden.

I think that an appropriate use of the building is as the "OKC Creativity Center / Institute". The theater areas could be turned into lecture and show areas with other areas being labs/work areas. Topics could be unlimited. Line up a program of creative speakers/instructors. It could be used for all ages, school events, corporate events, etc. It is a creative building, use it as that. Use the unusual energy of the building as an advantage. Use it for something that could get sponsorship from a variety of entities and use by a wider spectrum.

Perhaps as the new headquarters for Creative Oklahoma and a new venue for mini Oklahoma Creativity Forums?

If the building inspires whimsy and creativity, then that should be its function.

I guess I'm too pragmatic to know if that would work, but I like the idea.

I guess I'm too pragmatic to know if that would work, but I like the idea.

I agree, Spartan. If there is way to make that work financially it's an excellent idea. I know that will never convince the negative nellies who just don't like the way it looks though.

Well, that's a pretty awesome and comprehensive idea! Let's make it happen!

Great concept, sidburgess. Just curious, where is your example housing rendering from?

Wouldn't it just be simpler, cheaper, and more generally effective to build this very concept from scratch somewhere else in downtown?

The point is that is not about the quality of the re-use notions, its about the *horrendous* expense involved in rehabilitating that disaster, to say nothing of the $1M annual cost in maintenance, and/or who will foot that sizeable bill. Surely the voters can't be expected to pay it.

Kind of what I've thought as well Dave...Rebuild it, and make sure that it's built better at the seams so that the massive problems with the building are solved.

Children's Museum Proposed for Stage Center

http://journalrecord.com/2012/02/02/children’s-museum-proposed-for-okc’s-stage-center-real-estate/

Children's Museum Proposed for Stage Center

http://journalrecord.com/2012/02/02/children’s-museum-proposed-for-okc’s-stage-center-real-estate/

Log in required. Gist?

By Dave Rhea
Journal Record
Posted: 06:23 PM Thursday, February 2, 2012

OKLAHOMA CITY – Oklahoma City’s Stage Center is sort of like a structural Rorschach test.

To some, it’s an outdated eyesore taking up some of downtown Oklahoma City’s most valuable real estate – right across the street from Devon’s $750 million corporate headquarters and adjacent to the newly renovated Myriad Gardens.

But to others, it’s a community cultural landmark. It represents some of the city’s earliest attempts at forward-thinking, avant-garde architecture.

One thing most everyone can agree on is that there is no shortage of opinions about the Stage Center complex. Presently, the lingering question in the community is what to do with those peculiar buildings situated on that valuable land.

One idea sprung up separately, but almost simultaneously, in the creative minds of Tracey Zeeck and Farooq Karim.

Zeeck owns an independent public relations company called Bumbershoot PR. Since Zeeck and her husband, Andy Zeeck, became parents, she has wanted to have a children’s museum in Oklahoma City.

“When we travel, that is something we always do at least one day of our trip,” she said.

With extensive downtown renovations, the lack of a children’s creative center as is found in other major markets, and the need to preserve a culturally and architecturally significant structure, Zeeck said now is the perfect time. She said she feels great and growing passion about making Stage Center Oklahoma City’s first dedicated children’s museum.

“Everybody wants to save Stage Center, and this is our one last chance to save it,” she said.

Almost simultaneously and completely unrelated, Karim was dreaming along the same lines. Karim, a vice president at Rees Associates architecture firm and the company’s practice leader in design and visualization, was originally involved in a feasibility study conducted about five years ago to repurpose Stage Center for theater use, he said. That was when he realized that it was almost impossible to renovate it for realistic modern theater use.

While driving to Dallas Tuesday on unrelated business, Karim said, he was thinking about the building because he was asked to lead a brainstorming session about it with Rees Associates on Feb. 9.

“I was thinking, this building just screams ‘children’s museum’ to me,” he said.

He said others at the Rees office have the same idea about repurposing the building for a creative children’s center.

“Then I get this email about Tracey and about the children’s museum idea, and I immediately had someone call her and say she and I need to get together ASAP,” Karim said.

He also said this is the last chance to save Stage Center from destruction. The city needs a children-specific creative-recreational facility at the same world-class level as the other construction in the area, he added.

“There are things downtown that are beneficial to kids, but nothing in the heart of the city for families and kids,” Karim said.

“We need fine arts performance art and music, and you’ve already got the spaces in that building to serve those purposes.”

Zeeck said there is no bad guy standing by with a wrecking ball, but time is of the essence. Considering the value of the land, the building needs to be preserved through some new viable use. Otherwise, it might be razed, falling prey to market forces.

“The bad guy is whoever has $20 million and won’t give it to kids,” she said jokingly, adding that the real hurdle will be finding the necessary funding.

Her ideal situation involves someone or some organization with a lot of money becoming emotionally vested in the project.

“The (Oklahoma City) Community Foundation (the current owners of Stage Center) has no agenda for this place,” Zeeck said.

“They just want to do something with it that’s going to keep it going.”

She added that a children’s museum would be easy to sustain, but not as easy to create.

With the combined passion, expertise and community network between Zeeck and Karim, this early idea could be the Hail Mary effort that saves Stage Center while filling a void in Oklahoma City.

“Like Tracey said, there is just something serendipitous about all of this coming together,” Karim said. “And if nothing else, in the end, if nothing else happens other than we put this together for the kids and save that building – perfect.”

I didn't know there wasn't a childrens museum right next to the zoo. Seems a little redundant ...

We had discussed the children's museum before but it would take a awful lot of funding...

First, you have great expense just to get the place into working order. In addition to the flooding, there are long-standing problems that have just received band-aid treatment in the past.

Then, you have to fund all the exhibits and performance spaces, another huge chunk.

And finally, you have to have a large endowment to fund the continued operation.


The difficult part is not coming up with the idea, which was a rather obvious one from the outset. It's how you raise tens of millions without any existing organization or infrastructure to make that happen.

They mentioned $20 million in the article and that seems to be very conservative. They would have to find one or more big corporate sponsors in a big hurry.

Pete, I think the very point you bring up begs the broader question - if someone were willing to pursue ANY of the supposed "revival" ideas for the Stage Center, could not the money needed be better spent on a *brand new* facility custom tailored to support the prospective new tenant's desires rather than being designed to "save" the Stage Center?

I mean, add up the $$ to get the SC habitable. Every penny of that money could be used to invest in this proposed "Children's Museum" in a from-scratch environment with the funds going to the Children's Museum project, not to rehab the SC. If its deemed a worthwhile project, why embark on any funding commitment that doesn't route the maximum possible financial resources to the project, not the building? The same could be said of nearly any well-intentioned philanthropic venture really aimed at saving the SC.

And I agree, I looked at $20M to start up and almost laughed out loud.

Dave, I'm sure to some people the extra money would be worth it to save the building.

I'm sure they would argue the least expensive route is not always the best and there is a strong element of history and architectural significance. I know not everyone feels that way but there are lots that do and we'll see if they can rally the necessary support.

How much would it cost to destroy the SC?

It cost $53 million to renovate the Skirvin, and $40 million to build the much-larger Renaissance from scratch. In the end, which is more important to the identity of OKC? Was it worth it to renovate the Skirvin, or should we have just demolished it and built a new hotel? Out with the old, in with the new, right? And don't tell me nobody wanted to tear down the Skirvin; many did, and to say otherwise is revisionist history.

How much would it cost to destroy the SC?

Not that I'm advocating this but unless they would be attempting to save part of the structure, the whole thing could be scraped for about $200K.

Demolition is generally pretty cheap.

Stage Center /= Skirvin. The only claim to fame for Stage Center is it won award 40 years ago. It has in no way had an impact on the history, growth, or business of Oklahoma City. It is not part of a bigger picture like the Skirvin is/was. Stage Center is an entity unto it self.

Sell the land Stage Center sits on and you can do all those things Sooner Dave mentioned.

If the Stage Center building wasn't used for the museum, there is absolutely no reason for it to be located on such a prime piece of property.

It would be better situated near the Civic Center or further west; still part of the Arts District but not using an expensive and key property right on the park and the CBD border.

I never said it was the equal of the Skirvin. However, it is unique and more important to the architectural history of this town than all but a very small handful of buildings. That counts for something, or it should. Whether that importance justifies going to extreme means to preserve the building is for others (and the community) to decide.

It cost $53 million to renovate the Skirvin, and $40 million to build the much-larger Renaissance from scratch. In the end, which is more important to the identity of OKC? Was it worth it to renovate the Skirvin, or should we have just demolished it and built a new hotel? Out with the old, in with the new, right? And don't tell me nobody wanted to tear down the Skirvin; many did, and to say otherwise is revisionist history.

To compare the Stage Center to the Skirvin is like comparing a Yugo to a BMW. The Skirvin was, in its heyday, a vibrant, integral part of Oklahoma City in general and downtown in particular. Talk to nearly anyone of the immediately previous generation and they'll tell why and how the Skirvin became woven into OKC's history. Ask them about the "Stage Center," and then when you clarify that its the old "Mummers," the majority will most certainly respond with, "ugh." It has no relevance to Oklahoma City's history except to serve as a monument to form before function and a poster child for white elephants, lost causes, and the absurd waste of resources.

Are there some who wanted to tear down the Skirvin? I'm sure there were. But to say that number or proportion matched that who presently advocate razing the Stage Center, or to even remotely imply that the Stage Center has had a social or historical impact on Oklahoma City on par with that of the Skirvin, is a great deal worse than revisionist history - its delusional.

Moreover, what happens if someone comes along and does plunk a few million to put some lipstick on that pig, only to find the next flood, the next structural failing, the next round of damage, the next unexpected problem, purges the then-current tenants out for weeks, months...just like the last, what, two or three tenants have endured (to say nothing of the property lost) - and guess what - we're right back where we are, with one group begging to preserve it, yet simultaneously expecting someone else to pick up the costs. At some point, that merry-go-round has to end.

I know this irritates the folks who want to preserve it, and I don't intend to offend, but at some point some reality has to be brought to bear on this issue.

The simple truth is that unless someone can come up with $30+ million in a hurry, this structure won't be saved.

It would be a pity in many ways but the place is currently a disaster and beyond that, it's never worked right and seems to have some major construction/engineering flaws that cause it to be extremely expensive to maintain.

Unless there is a large financial commitment to correct these problems, it really doesn't make any sense to save it. Something major needs to happen; another band-aid is just kicking the can down the street and leaves the city with an eyesore and big hole in the middle of an emerging downtown.

Yes, this is my opinion, I'm well aware of that, but... It's already an eyesore.

SoonerDave, I'm pretty sure you DID intend to offend. You called just more or less called me delusional, and I'm not even advocating its preservation, much less begging for it. I'm just pointing out that somewhere along the line the community has to make value judgments on buildings like these. Sometimes history and/or aesthetics win out; sometimes practicality does. In the case of the Skirvin, it was deemed that history trumped practicality. Elsewhere in OKC's history, practicality (and even preemptive "practicality") has won nearly every time, and we've been left with a pockmarked landscape straight out of Kunstler's The Geography of Nowhere (http://www.amazon.com/Geography-Nowhere-Americas-Man-Made-Landscape/dp/0671888250). It will be interesting to see where OKC ends up on this one. In this particular case I have no strong personal attachment to that building, but at the same time understand why some want it saved.

But I will say one thing - and this thread and others prove it - for every vocal preservation advocate tilting at windmills, showing up at the 11th hour, there is usually at least one DEMOLITION advocate also showing up at the 11th hour, foaming at the mouth to tear something down. This happens regardless of the structure. I promise there were just as many people who cheered the wrecking ball swinging on the Criterion Theater or the Baum Building as hated it. People packed lunches to watch the implosions of the Biltmore, Belle Isle Power Plant and the demo of the Graffiti Bridge. I would argue that practicality was the right choice on at least one if not two of them, and maybe all three. The Criterion or the Baum? Stupid removals when looked at through the lens of history.

When the Skirvin was abandoned, many, many people - some of them important - pronounced it an eyesore and called for its demolition. None of those people would admit to that position today. Now people suddenly love the Braniff as they see it coming back to life, yet just a couple of years ago I had more than a few conversations with intelligent people who were aching to see that building reduced to rubble. Hindsight, as usual, is 20/20.

Buildings are only what people choose to make of them. Money is fickle. Money is why the Baum Building wasn't moved instead of torn down. They were concerned with costs. The right now instead of the forty years, eighty years from now.

I just noticed something I should have seen long ago. Somehow I walked passed it numerous times. There's actually a plaque put up for the Baptist White Temple on E.K. Gaylord. Why Western Union had to demolish this and build right at this spot and not somewhere else is beyond me. I'm sure it was some other fickle reason.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/IMG_3692.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/Baptist%20White%20Temple/BaptistWhiteTemple400NBroadwayc1900s.jpg

I edited my previous post to include reference to James Howard Kunstler's The Geography of Nowhere (http://www.amazon.com/Geography-Nowhere-Americas-Man-Made-Landscape/dp/0671888250), but it's worth posting a link again, just in case someone missed it and doesn't make a habit of scrolling back through threads. I think that book and the arguments therein are relevant to this discussion.

Thanks Wil for pointing this out.

From my 5,000 miles and 30 years away from OKC, I can only shake my head in dismay at how the city continues to disregard its heritage and simply destroy what is no longer in style, deemed appropriate or financially viable. Today it is Stage Center, tomorrow Union Bus Station, in 10 years, the Chase tower. I really do simply give up. Glad I made the decision when I did to move to a place where people have a little more respect for their past as they know that it has a direct influence on their future. My last word on this sad topic.

David, what city did you move to?

So, understanding the desire or social responsibility aspect, is the government of the city supposed to commit the money, or do we force the property owners to keep it until either they or a buyer becomes responsible?

I still don't see how people are making the leap to call Stage Center an integral piece of OKC history. OKC is NOT known for the Stage Center. It never has been, and it never will be. Also, referencing The Geography of Nowhere to support keeping a dead suburban structure in the heart of what is supposed to be the most walkable area in the city isn't a good idea. Followers of the New Urbanism would be hard pressed to support such a small functional area taking up an entire city block with 100 to 200 foot setbacks.

I wonder how much it would cost to build Stage Center from scratch at another location.

OKC is NOT known for the Stage Center. It never has been, and it never will be.

Kerry, there are very few buildings, if any, that OKC is known for. That's not a relevant argument.

Kerry, there are very few buildings, if any, that OKC is known for. That's not a relevant argument.

Ahem, there is one that we are known for by skyscraper enthusiasts all over the world. =)

Thanks Wil for pointing this out.

From my 5,000 miles and 30 years away from OKC, I can only shake my head in dismay at how the city continues to disregard its heritage and simply destroy what is no longer in style, deemed appropriate or financially viable. Today it is Stage Center, tomorrow Union Bus Station, in 10 years, the Chase tower. I really do simply give up. Glad I made the decision when I did to move to a place where people have a little more respect for their past as they know that it has a direct influence on their future. My last word on this sad topic.

Agree, it's the same thing again. You know in an odd way Core to Shore is an embodiment of this idea too... Rather than continuing with our current downtown they are basically abandoning it to build something new from scratch to the south. That's basically a 21st Century equivalent to the IM Pei plan and no one notices....

..

Thanks Wil for pointing this out.

From my 5,000 miles and 30 years away from OKC, I can only shake my head in dismay at how the city continues to disregard its heritage and simply destroy what is no longer in style, deemed appropriate or financially viable. Today it is Stage Center, tomorrow Union Bus Station, in 10 years, the Chase tower. I really do simply give up. Glad I made the decision when I did to move to a place where people have a little more respect for their past as they know that it has a direct influence on their future. My last word on this sad topic.

Amsterdam

Amsterdam

I have been to Amsterdam more than once and I love it. The Grand Hotel Krasnapolsky on Dom Square is my favorite. It's hardly a city you can compare to OKC though any more than any European city. Besides the fact that it is centuries older it has a topography that dictates what can be done.

You know, I think we are talking about a state of mind here. Whoever the owner of any building may be, and whatever interest the city may have, it is a question of standing back for a moment and asking why we are destroying a building. If it is 'only' for the profit, should there not be additional control mechanisms to at least consider the long-term view?

I feel qualified to ask this as I grew up in OKC and remember quite clearly how excited I was myself to see the old buildings blown up downtown to make way for the new modern city that was only to begin to be realized some 25 years later. Only in the past 10-15 years have I come to understand what treasures were actually lost in the city; forever! Living as I do now in Amsterdam, there is a completely different perspective here on history and the preservations of buildings with the main focus being on their historical connection. Despite this, this city has a wealth of modern new buildings that blend in beautifully with the past. Skeptics will say that OKC is not Amsterdam, but what is relevant here is the acknowledgment that there is a very real connection between the past present and future in any urban landscape.

To put this poetry into concrete terms though, I would suggest that Stage Center should be preserved, re-purposed, with a very dense, and 'destination' use of the perimeter spaces. Just for the fun of it,..... and because I am bored on this sunny, snowy Saturday morning..... I have put my ideas on 'paper' below.

The mid-rise to the right is a hotel or a condo tower, with a retail base, to the left is an educational (i.e. Fine Arts such as Julliard) institution that relates to the elementary school to the west. Stage Center itself could have any number of functions that complement both/either of these buildings. A new modern art museum would be my preference. Here, I have added a large glass circular atrium that is in the spirit of the original building, but still respects the architecture. Absolutely wonderful things could be done that incorporate the existing building while putting modern facilities into place. I would like to see Devon or one of the other major community supporters vie for the honor of renovating it and 'claiming it' in their name.


http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8318229/Stage%20Center.jpg

You know, I think we are talking about a state of mind here. Whoever the owner of any building may be, and whatever interest the city may have, it is a question of standing back for a moment and asking why we are destroying a building. If it is 'only' for the profit, should there not be additional control mechanisms to at least consider the long-term view?

I feel qualified to ask this as I grew up in OKC and remember quite clearly how excited I was myself to see the old buildings blown up downtown to make way for the new modern city that was only to begin to be realized some 25 years later. Only in the past 10-15 years have I come to understand what treasures were actually lost in the city; forever! Living as I do now in Amsterdam, there is a completely different perspective here on history and the preservations of buildings with the main focus being on their historical connection. Despite this, this city has a wealth of modern new buildings that blend in beautifully with the past. Skeptics will say that OKC is not Amsterdam, but what is relevant here is the acknowledgment that there is a very real connection between the past present and future in any urban landscape.

To put this poetry into concrete terms though, I would suggest that Stage Center should be preserved, re-purposed, with a very dense, and 'destination' use of the perimeter spaces. Just for the fun of it,..... and because I am bored on this sunny, snowy Saturday morning..... I have put my ideas on 'paper' below.

The mid-rise to the right is a hotel or a condo tower, with a retail base, to the left is an educational (i.e. Fine Arts such as Julliard) institution that relates to the elementary school to the west. Stage Center itself could have any number of functions that complement both/either of these buildings. A new modern art museum would be my preference. Here, I have added a large glass circular atrium that is in the spirit of the original building, but still respects the architecture. Absolutely wonderful things could be done that incorporate the existing building while putting modern facilities into place. I would like to see Devon or one of the other major community supporters vie for the honor of renovating it and 'claiming it' in their name.


http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8318229/Stage%20Center.jpg

David, maybe you are totally misunderstanding me. I am a big proponent of the Stage Center and it's preservation but to compare OKC to Amsterdam is just not logical. I also remember when the Biltmore was imploded and was excited to see that at the time. I just had no concept then about what it might mean to OKC at a later date.

David, maybe you are totally misunderstanding me. I am a big proponent of the Stage Center and it's preservation but to compare OKC to Amsterdam is just not logical. I also remember when the Biltmore was imploded and was excited to see that at the time. I just had no concept then about what it might mean to OKC at a later date.

Actually I think we are on the same line regarding the preservation of Stage Center. My comparison is mainly because these are the two examples I know best: not illogical, just practical. Neither you nor I knew what the repercussions would be now for the mistakes made in the 70's. However in Amsterdam, and even many older cities in the USA, they HAVE had the luxury of looking back at past mistakes (and there were many) and are trying.. in some cases.. not to repeat them. That is my main point. Let's just hold our breath and see how OKC handles this challenge!

Consider the massive differences in age between any city in Europe and those in the USA. Go back 400 years; the European cities that are major centers today had long-established histories in 1612. The area now encompassed by the USA had few major centers, and none of them were of European origin. It took almost another century for European immigrants to build places such as Boston, New York, and Charleston -- and little of what they built in that century survives today.

Our city is just over 120 years old. The only surviving relic of its first week of existence is the mis-alignment of north-south streets in the original downtown area, and even that is being erased, bit by bit. We're still in the building phase of our existence, more concerned with creating a history than in preserving what's already here.

That said, I miss the downtown I knew -- the Criterion, Katz Drug, the Baum building, even the old interurban terminal. I decry the wholesale clearing by Urban Renewal as a tragedy. However we do seem to be learning a bit from some of our mistakes in the past. Examples that spring to mind include Bricktown, Automobile Alley, Plaza Court, and Film Row; as our culture matures I expect we will do better but even in the ancient cities of Europe, not everything is preserved indefinitely.

Area cultures are, in many ways, like the individuals that comprise them: we all grow too soon old and too late smart!

Just checked my lotto number.
Sorry Stage Center.

Every time I go abroad and return home I am reminded that we are a tent city on the prairie. What was put up yesterday will be taken down tomorrow. Perhaps it is too deep in our culture now to expect change anytime soon.

Every time I go abroad and return home I am reminded that we are a tent city on the prairie. What was put up yesterday will be taken down tomorrow. Perhaps it is too deep in our culture now to expect change anytime soon.

Truth, unfortunately. That's a change that tragically may never come.

And every time I travel around the world, I return grateful to have such a good life as is afforded here. Sorry, but I don't come back to look down on us ignorant Okies. I try to keep the Euro arrogance back there.

Development follows transportation systems. Prior to the end of WWII every town, city, and hamlet in America was layed out and looked just like every town, city and hamlet in Europe. The difference is after WWII European government didn't come up with things like GI loans for suburban houses. America turned to the automobile and Europe didn't and development patterns diverged.

Every time I go abroad and return home I am reminded that we are a tent city on the prairie. What was put up yesterday will be taken down tomorrow. Perhaps it is too deep in our culture now to expect change anytime soon.

Every time I've come back from Europe, Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe I've practically got down on my hands and knees and kissed the dirt.

Yes, kiss the ground, just not Stage Center and our other architecture, (speaking in general, not necessarily you and Rover in particular) as evidenced by the lack of concern to keep it around very long. (What I was talking about. But feel free to be all offended that someone implied WE are ignorant when they did not. I'm okie born and a long term resident. Probably more years than the two of you combined.)

The built environment of our country is very young by comparison and OKC more so. We build things as inexpensively as possible and don't think much about tearing them down. Lots of fast steel and EIFS if you look around. (Tents) They probably built as inexpensively as possible in Europe too, in the days before we were even a country, but to different standards and with different materials than we have here today, have ever had here, and will ever have here. What we do build to exceptional standards, including design, we treat much the same way as that which isn't.

We are more of the consumerist mentality. Buy it, use it, toss it and that too plays a role in not saving and finding new use for older buildings.

I read the other day that 80% of everything in American has been built in the last 50 years. Some of our primary economic indicators are housing starts and new car sales. The whole economy is based and measured on building new stuff. But heaven forbid something negative is said about widening the Kilpatrick Turnpike, widening I-40, or spreading suburbia all over the prairie. I am really happy to see so many people starting to come to the realization that we can't afford to keep building and developing the way we have since 1945. That realization led me to the New Urbanism and it is what tells me that even if we could save Stage Center – we shouldn’t. The land is too valuable to be wasted on low density development.

Which makes me think about all of those idiots in New York City. What are they thinking letting some of the most valuable real estate in the world be taken up by that Central Park thingy? Maybe we should consider taking out a runway at Will Rogers and putting up a few high rise condos. That would be much more dense instead of just being a waste of valuable land.