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.

Platitudes don't benefit anything...

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)

What we do build to exceptional standards, including design, we treat much the same way as that which isn't.

This statement is too true for others to get away with equating it to looking down on Oklahomans, which it simply isn't.

Goodness. Sorry I brought up the fact that I live somewhere else than OKC!

My only point was that there is lots of potential for Stage Center, and tired to point out some alternatives. No value judgment intended. Besides, for those of you who have ever lived abroad you should know that you can take the man out of Oklahoma, but you can never take the Oklahoman out of the man.

It's funny that David mentions Amsterdam. That's actually the only other city I've had the fortune to visit outside of the United States. It was actually when I began having an interest in photography. I mean literally, all I had was a cheap disposable. Shortly after that I got a "real" camera, which was a point-and-shoot film camera. The photos are simply terrible looking to me now, but it's the only photos in the family from outside the U.S. This was ten years ago this year.

Platitudes don't benefit anything...

Sorry. Neither does constant demeaning opposing views or generalized statements about how backwards OKC will be compared to the rest of the world. OKC is an infant compared to much of the world and it's cities. That would be like saying children are stupid - they aren't. But they don't make the same decisions as adults because of a lack of experience and frame of reference.

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.

Why do you make comments like this when you already know the real answer? Central Park is what allows the rest of Manhatten to be so dense. Stage Center is NOT Central Park - MBG and Central Park will fill that role in OKC.

Anybody that compares the dynamics of NYC and Manhatten to core OKC either hasn't been to NYC or doesn't understand urban development, history, or economics, or all three.

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.

You are preaching to the choir, brotherman: http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=23879&p=381412#post381412 but I'm glad you have seen the light.

Goodbye Stage Center. I've thought about you, a lot, over the past 24 hours. If you were merely an empty yet functional structure, I would stand for you still, time and again, against any who would crave the land you stand upon. Sadly, that is not the case. Whatever you have been, however unique you have stood for all these years, we've left you to rot. We've ignored you until you are beyond being repaired for any feasible sum. I still harbor a hope that someone with more funds than sense will do something for you. But in total truth, if I could influence such a person or persons, I'd feel bound to ask them why. Why save this structure with those funds when so many other things could be done, things that others are not presently doing.

I will miss you Stage Center. We had some good times. And it's doubtful anything like you will ever be erected in the metro again. If it should come to pass though, I hope we won't collectively screw it up as we did here.

With that said, I am out.

Is there a reason for your sorrowful sonnet?

There is a final play underway to save Stage Center. And it has surprisingly decent odds of success (30 to 50 percent).

There is a final play underway to save Stage Center. And it has surprisingly decent odds of success (30 to 50 percent).

Did I miss something? What happened to the RFP process?

The RFP process is still out there. And I'm basically implying that there's a bid underway that may have some legs to it.

Why do you make comments like this when you already know the real answer? Central Park is what allows the rest of Manhatten to be so dense. Stage Center is NOT Central Park - MBG and Central Park will fill that role in OKC.

You know exactly what I was talking about, Kerry. I have no need to explain.

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....

that is not close to the truth

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.
JTF, you and I are aligned on a large number of things, but in this case mine wasn't an urbanist argument, nor is "The Geography of Nowhere" strictly a new urbanist book, though urbanism is clearly the foundation of Kunstler's writing. That book also addresses/laments disposable architecture and the rise of generic, crummy "cartoon" buildings with planned lifetimes, built to grab the attention of drivers hauling ass down roads that could be in any town.

Kunstler writes often of "sense of place," and while that most often (and most easily) is associated with urbanist designs, it can also be created through iconic architecture. The book is worth a re-read (for me too), but the reference was appropriate.

Regarding my mentions of the Skirvin that a few people have gotten hung up on, nowhere have I ever claimed the two buildings were comparable in history, community value or usability. All I meant was that somewhere along the way we (the community) decided that the Skirvin was important enough to keep around, even if it cost more to do so than to tear it down and build new, and even if it didn't function quite as perfectly as a modern building.

It was a values choice, not a practicality choice. We (sometimes the public sector, sometimes the private) have made similar values judgments on a few other buildings (notable: Gold Dome, many buildings in Automobile Alley, Bricktown, and elsewhere), but often we decide the fate of a structure based on practicality only, and some of those decisions have been extremely regrettable in hindsight.

My personal opinion on Stage Center: if the architectural community tells us it that it is important and irreplaceable, I would defer to them. I have been a fan of architecture and design since I can remember, and I recognize just because some architecture (or art, or music) might not be my personal taste that doesn't mean it's not important.

That said, I would hope that if it is saved, the lifeline comes from the private sector not the public. If someone wants to step up, be a champion for that building, and do so in a way that makes it viable for years to come, who am I to say they should be spending their money on something else?

And I do think, like David Pollard pointed out, there may be some ways to preserve the building yet make it more sensitive to the urban fabric around it and have it fit/function better within its rapidly-changing environs. If that can be done, I'm all for that too.

But if a white knight doesn't step forward, I think the building is done for.

Sorry to regurgitate all of that at once, but I've been out of town + busy and haven't been able to catch up on this thread.

Fair enough Urbanized. I, as much as anyone, appreciate architecture that uses something other than glass (the new EIFS in my book). While I think the building is unique, there comes a tradeoff (for me anyhow) about what is there, and what could be there. I would 100% support rebuilding Stage Center at another location, even downtown, if it sat on about 1/4 the amount of land, or even moving it to the new Central Park. And by 'moving', I don't mean an actual move but a rebuilding from original plans.

The RFP process is still out there. And I'm basically implying that there's a bid underway that may have some legs to it.

It it's the idea I've heard about—making Stage Center a children's museum—then I think it absolutely has legs. It would almost be like an extension of the Gardens, and would bring a lot of activity to the street as families journeyed down to visit the center and the park across the street. In fact, I'm betting that the tinker-toy aspect to the building makes it a perfect envelope for such an idea.

I certainly hope we save Stage Center. We've lost so much of our wonderful early 20th Century architecture. Today, we say "look at this picture. Look at the kind of architecture we use to have in our city. Isn't it a shame we blew it up?" I just don't want future generations saying something like: "Oh yeah. We used to have a piece of brutalist architecture, too. In fact, it was an award-winning piece of architecture. But we blew that up, too."

I am having a hard time believing someone actually suggested enclosing a bunch of kids inside a windowless concrete box and then packing it full of flammable material. That seems to have disaster written all over it.

Fair enough Urbanized. I, as much as anyone, appreciate architecture that uses something other than glass (the new EIFS in my book). While I think the building is unique, there comes a tradeoff (for me anyhow) about what is there, and what could be there. I would 100% support rebuilding Stage Center at another location, even downtown, if it sat on about 1/4 the amount of land, or even moving it to the new Central Park. And by 'moving', I don't mean an actual move but a rebuilding from original plans.

Rebuilding in a different spot is like forgery of an old master. Just like making pseudo old world design buildings doesn't create history. Either the building is worth saving as an important piece of heritage and architectural history, or it isn't. Rebuilding a functionally decrepit design would be insane. Building a shell of it for art's sake would be an even bigger waste of money. Save the original or don't.

I am having a hard time believing someone actually suggested enclosing a bunch of kids inside a windowless concrete box and then packing it full of flammable material. That seems to have disaster written all over it.

Well, I taught in a windowless school in OKC for the last 5 years that fits that deacription so I think people around here are good with it.

If it's the idea I've heard about--making Stage Center a children's museum--then I think it absolutely has legs. It would almost be like an extension of the Gardens, and would bring a lot of activity to the street as families journeyed down to visit the center and the park across the street. In fact, I'm betting that the tinker-toy aspect to the building makes it a perfect envelope for such an idea.

This idea makes more sense than any other I've heard about saving the building. The design makes sense for something for kids. But I still don't see the $ needed to pull it off.

It it's the idea I've heard about—making Stage Center a children's museum—then I think it absolutely has legs. It would almost be like an extension of the Gardens, and would bring a lot of activity to the street as families journeyed down to visit the center and the park across the street. In fact, I'm betting that the tinker-toy aspect to the building makes it a perfect envelope for such an idea.

You know in a strange way, what with its brightly colored "blocks" and all, that makes sense. I really like this.


I certainly hope we save Stage Center. We've lost so much of our wonderful early 20th Century architecture. Today, we say "look at this picture. Look at the kind of architecture we use to have in our city. Isn't it a shame we blew it up?" I just don't want future generations saying something like: "Oh yeah. We used to have a piece of brutalist architecture, too. In fact, it was an award-winning piece of architecture. But we blew that up, too."

Yep!

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

I'm not exactly a Stage Center fan boy (incidentally my kids love it), but I like this idea a lot (except with SC itself being a Children's Museum instead of a modern art museum... though maybe it could be both?). Mostly because people have been saying even if you could come up with the cash to save it, where would the cash come from to maintain it, and this is one way it could, by having other for-profit endeavors on the property (which should also make the density-conscious happy). Maybe if a new TIF were setup so that the tax revenue generated by the hotel-condo (why not both?) and educational institution (which could compliment the elementary school nicely) went to "Stage Center Children's Interactive Museum" (reminiscent of the Please Touch Museum in Philly) maintenance, this could all work out...

Off-topic aside...
Your glass atrium makes me think a little bit about the Royal Ontario Museum. They took the old building that was out of space with no room to grow, and they slapped a huge modern structure over it, and though I initially gasped when I saw it, I really kinda liked it once I spent some time with it. It all worked together quite nicely.

Glad you like it. The more I read here, the more I think that a Children's Museum would be great! The main entrance can be shifted to the south with the entrance via the atrium. Actually, I would even recommend using large skylights in the roofs of the older sections to create more usable spaces. The purists might be unhappy, but if it is a question of slight modification or demolition, my choice is clear!

As a matter of fact, while we are at it, let's create an entire east/west axis here. We can continue the education/youth theme with a tree-shaded 'mall' or pathway through the elementary school to the West, the Myriad Gardens to the East and, once the Cox is replaced by other development, with another child-or youth oriented theme further east. And to be REALLY symbolic, the further east the axis goes the more 'mature' it would get as it travels through Bricktown. My synical/comic side says we would end up with extreme adult entertainment on the far-east side of Bricktown and an invitro fertilization clinic to the west of the elementary!! (tongue in cheek here!!)

Children's Museum being pitched as plan for saving Stage Center (http://newsok.com/childrens-museum-being-pitched-as-plan-for-saving-stage-center/article/3648749#ixzz1mKSCv37y)

BY STEVE LACKMEYER slackmeyer@opubco.com
Published: February 14, 2012

“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not.” — Dr. Seuss,” The Lorax.

Tracey Zeeck and Farooq Karim see themselves as living out the words first uttered by Dr. Seuss four decades ago. They are tackling a problem many have dismissed as unfixable. Experts say $40 million will be needed to make their dream come true. And the pair, who didn't even know each other until this month, have just two weeks to create a plan that will overcome all of these odds.

It is too bad saving Stage Center takes priority over what would otherewise be a great project. Do you have any idea what kind of Childrens Museum you could build for $40 million if you didn't spend $20 to $30 milliion of it trying to save the building?

It is too bad saving Stage Center takes priority over what would otherewise be a great project. Do you have any idea what kind of Childrens Museum you could build for $40 million if you didn't spend $20 to $30 milliion of it trying to save the building?

But saving Stage Center could tap a whole different group of donors. Some people will want to contribute to saving Stage Center who would not be interested in contributing to a Childrens Museum... and vice versa.

It is too bad saving Stage Center takes priority over what would otherewise be a great project. Do you have any idea what kind of Childrens Museum you could build for $40 million if you didn't spend $20 to $30 milliion of it trying to save the building?

Perfectly stated, JTF. The disingenuity of the idea is just staggering. Plow down that Stage Center for a fraction of that amount and build a world-class children's museum right where it stood!

But saving Stage Center could tap a whole different group of donors. Some people will want to contribute to saving Stage Center who would not be interested in contributing to a Childrens Museum... and vice versa.

But the people interested in saving the Stage Center are already interested in doing so. What more incentive do they need? And what philanthropic soul would love the idea of a "children's museum," but find that the first $20m of their "contribution" will go to rehab a decrepit, miserable, old concrete building rather than a brand new facility, custom-cut to be a museum!?

Perfectly stated, JTF. The disingenuity of the idea is just staggering. Plow down that Stage Center for a fraction of that amount and build a world-class children's museum right where it stood!

Building a Children's Museum should be about children, not a carrot to attract donors to saving a building.

Not everyone sees the building as miserable and decrepit. I see it as whimsical and worth saving, an iconic downtown building. I guess it depends on who holds which point of view.

I can't help but wonder if India Temple would still be standing if someone had proposed a Children's Museum for it.

The Atlanta Children's Museum
http://img.groundspeak.com/waymarking/display/9409adad-8f36-4665-9222-4bd07fb17f70.jpg

But saving Stage Center could tap a whole different group of donors. Some people will want to contribute to saving Stage Center who would not be interested in contributing to a Childrens Museum... and vice versa.I keep reading this over and over. But no one with any money has stepped up to save it in all these years. I know there are lots of people that want to save the building but do these people have the funds. I don't think so.

Random but I think an aquarium would be really cool on that site. have some sort of tie in to the park

:congrats:

Random but I think an aquarium would be really cool on that sight. have some sort of tie in to the park

i've thought for a long time that the OKC Zoo should get rid of their Aquarium there and put a much larger Aquarium in downtown... this would give the Zoo more area to expand exhibits, and give something to do on weekend in downtown...

I keep reading this over and over. But no one with any money has stepped up to save it in all these years. I know there are lots of people that want to save the building but do these people have the funds. I don't think so.

Did you really need to read it over and over to come up with that question? It was really a pretty straight-forward post... ;-) In any event, I don't know the answer to that question. Perhaps people with interest and money just need a good plan for the use of the building...

Did you really need to read it over and over to come up with that question? It was really a pretty straight-forward post... ;-) In any event, I don't know the answer to that question. Perhaps people with interest and money just need a good plan for the use of the building...I meant that it has been posted by many here that there are a lot of people that want to save the building.

I'd say relocate it to C2S, but don't build it in a hole, then use that parcel for the next skyscraper. The land sale would pay for the salvation (relocation) of SC, and open up prime park frontage for another devonisque tower.

Sugar Free Allstars, the “kindie rock” duo that shared in a Grammy Awards win this month, will headline a free concert this weekend to raise awareness about a plan to renovate Stage Center and open a children's museum at the facility. The performance will take place from 2 to 4 p.m. Sunday at the band shell at Myriad Botanical Gardens, 301 W Reno.

http://newsok.com/sugar-free-allstars-to-headline-free-concert-sunday/article/3651533

As a part of that rally today, they released a rendering of what a children's museum concept:

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/421569_255851121162978_147513341996757_591373_7989 1588_n.jpg

I was for preservation, but if they're going to completely transform the thing from the original architectural intent, they might as well tear it down. Color me dissuaded.

What was the original architectural intent? It had something to do with bucking the architectural norms of the time. Breaking all the "rules" wasn't it?

Intent meaning the style and the final product, not some sort of underlying philosophy or motivation. I do not know what Johansen's broad philosophy was, other than to innovate. And this proposal is not an innovation. Anyway, by its construction, Mummers wasn't a dramatic leap forward, but a variation on a theme.

I love stage center, but not just for some inexact notion that it is odd or different or unique. I love it because of what it is, how it was designed, and the space it occupies in the city's architectural history. If all that money is going to be spent, it should be to preserve it and renovate the interior and surrounding grounds for the new purpose. It is as good as destroying it to do that to it, and that money would be better spent building a museum from the ground up.

My understanding is the Johansen folks support this effort.

Yeah, Johansen's son has been a part of this process is also my understanding.

So you both (Steve and Spartan) are in favor of the revamp? Putting reality and probability aside, would you prefer this rendering or restoring the exterior to its state at original completion while changing the function to a museum?

That's all my point really is. This really isn't "saving" stage center. It's transforming it at expense of its initial design goals. To me (and this is my opinion as an architectural philistine), this update is tantamount to razing the stage center.

Well, Stage Center is iconic, not historic. Also, Johansen originally intended the building to be conducive to modification, which the design is. In terms of preserving what, this is more about getting out ahead of preservation and preserving something that we will regret not preserving in the future.

I am still beginning to see this site more in terms of the big picture. If Devon is going to say, okay, either we tear down Stage Center or Main Street, I'm going to get on the side of Main Street and let Devon have the Stage Center. It'd be great if we can save EVERYTHING that is iconic and worth preserving AND build great new developments AROUND what we currently have. But lord knows that just makes too much sense.

I still believe that the best future use for Stage Center is if either OU, OSU, or UCO want to put in a "Center for Creativity and Innovation" in an iconic, abstract building in the heart of downtown. That would just be a win-win-win all around in my opinion. But I also understand the need for a children's museum in Oklahoma City, as the only one in all of Oklahoma is kind of in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps they could work in conjunction with some other players to MOVE the Jasmine Moran Children's Museum in Seminole into the Stage Center.

I don't see that too much on the exterior is changing, either. In fact, I believe this gets the site back to the original intent of Johansen's provocative design MUCH more than its current state, because it replaces poorly-conceived ugly trees (selected on purpose to get untamed and obscure the building's most important sight lines) with geodesic-inspired additions like the glass spheres and the Echelman sculpture. I do believe those additions are extremely complimentary to the modular layout and design of the original Mummer's Theatre.

Besides, Echelman sculptures are COOL and make great skyline additions, too. Think of what a strategic vantage point this site is in terms of having a prominent skyline view. Then consider how this Echelman piece accents the Phoenix "skyline." For those who haven't seen any of her work yet, Janet Echelman has become the Dale Chihuly of the great urban outdoors (but MUCH less expensive lol).

http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2011/05/25/8491057/PHX_Echelman_PhotoDavidFeldman_4650_GJH.jpg

http://newsok.com/sugar-free-allstarss-show-promotes-childrens-museum-in-oklahoma-city/article/3652629

http://childrensmuseumokc.com/

That sculpture shown in the rendering is not even as high as the Stage Center building, so it would be a fraction of the size as the one in Phoenix and only noticeable if you were very close to it.

I'm sorry, I didn't like Stage Center before and I would definately not be a fan if they did thise to it! This is bad, please no. That land could be developed into something amazing! I really want a mixed use development with ground floor retail and a hotel and residential on the upper floors. Please not this!

That sculpture shown in the rendering is not even as high as the Stage Center building, so it would be a fraction of the size as the one in Phoenix and only noticeable if you were very close to it.

Well, given past history, a mini version of the sculpture would be in keeping with the mini arch and space needle that are (used to be?) at the fairgrounds.
Not been out there in a few years so I don't know if those still exist or not.

That land could be developed into something amazing! I really want a mixed use development with ground floor retail and a hotel and residential on the upper floors. Please not this!

What's interesting is that this would be destroying something you don't see very often for something that is everywhere. Also, there is SO much opportunity to do just what you're saying without tearing anything down, let alone Stage Center.

I'd like to see what you're talking about happen as well, but I have no idea why it requires the demolition of Stage Center to do it. The reality is that, for some reason, we can't even get what you're talking about in areas where there already is foot traffic. It's a mystery to me, but no one seems to want to take on such a project here. And, if they do, I still don't see any reason to tear anything down for it.

I understand that Stage Center is a polarizing structure, but no one can deny that it is unique in a city which lacks uniqueness. Given Oklahoma City's lack of architectural whimsy as a whole and ample undeveloped land even within blocks of Stage Center, I don't get the total disdain for it. Even for those that hate it, you have to admit it is not holding up any projects. If there were plans for such a project, it would be stupid for the developer to be sitting on the sidelines waiting for the battles to play out when they could go one block in any direction and work with empty land or tear down less ambitious structures to do it.

I also don't get the lack of historical significance angle. Maybe that's because much of my earliest exposure to performance art when I was a kid growing up in Oklahoma City happened at Stage Center. I have been to art shows, musicals, and a couple of dozen plays there and loved it. I always liked the labyrinthine feel of the inside and how it made you feel like taking a journey even though it's not that big of a building. I think it kind of flows well with the park next to it and helps create a true arts district that isn't just made up of venues for major arts, but small independent and locally grown performance art as well.

Now, I'm not going to chain myself to it and I think the writing is on the wall, but the disdain for it, almost to the point of anger, kind of baffles me. I can't really grasp the non-historic angle, but that's just because I feel attached to it through my personal history. It's not really holding anything up, despite all of the grandiose plans we could come up with for the site and even those could be done in any number of places in downtown. Hardly anyone else has ever even tried to do something so different in a city known for sterility and tearing it down will send a message. However, I do think it's a message many here want sent.

In the end, when it's gone, Oklahoma City WILL be losing something and I only hope that what replaces it makes as much of an effort to bring something unique to our community as it did and that one day Oklahoma City will shift its development norm from tearing down our unique structures to redeveloping the vast amount of developments that never once considered aesthetics or community impact when it was first developed.

My biggest concern is that they get enough money to do this right -- and we are talking about tens of millions.

If they can't do that, it's just going to lead to another band-aid job with the structure still not used much.

It's a very difficult situation because they not only have to fund a museum (which is always an expensive proposition) but have to pay for the past sins of poor design and maintenance.

I'm supportive yet skeptical.

My biggest concern is that they get enough money to do this right -- and we are talking about tens of millions.

If they can't do that, it's just going to lead to another band-aid job with the structure still not used much.

It's a very difficult situation because they not only have to fund a museum (which is always an expensive proposition) but have to pay for the past sins of poor design and maintenance.

I'm supportive yet skeptical. That is my exact thoughts. If they are considering doing a "half assed" approach to renovation and slapping on a coat of paint and planting some flowers around the building then "no thanks!". I never was a fan of this building as I do not find the uniqueness and beauty that others find with it. It's design is unique but not in an inspiring way. My thoughts are if they plan on spending $30-40 million dollars , they should demolish this eyesore structure and start with something whimiscal, inspiring something that does not look "cheap" and put together with substandard materials. Children should be awe-inspired and go into a museum that is welcoming and warm!

What's interesting is that this would be destroying something you don't see very often for something that is everywhere. Also, there is SO much opportunity to do just what you're saying without tearing anything down, let alone Stage Center.

I'd like to see what you're talking about happen as well, but I have no idea why it requires the demolition of Stage Center to do it. The reality is that, for some reason, we can't even get what you're talking about in areas where there already is foot traffic. It's a mystery to me, but no one seems to want to take on such a project here. And, if they do, I still don't see any reason to tear anything down for it.

I understand that Stage Center is a polarizing structure, but no one can deny that it is unique in a city which lacks uniqueness. Given Oklahoma City's lack of architectural whimsy as a whole and ample undeveloped land even within blocks of Stage Center, I don't get the total disdain for it. Even for those that hate it, you have to admit it is not holding up any projects. If there were plans for such a project, it would be stupid for the developer to be sitting on the sidelines waiting for the battles to play out when they could go one block in any direction and work with empty land or tear down less ambitious structures to do it.

I also don't get the lack of historical significance angle. Maybe that's because much of my earliest exposure to performance art when I was a kid growing up in Oklahoma City happened at Stage Center. I have been to art shows, musicals, and a couple of dozen plays there and loved it. I always liked the labyrinthine feel of the inside and how it made you feel like taking a journey even though it's not that big of a building. I think it kind of flows well with the park next to it and helps create a true arts district that isn't just made up of venues for major arts, but small independent and locally grown performance art as well.

Now, I'm not going to chain myself to it and I think the writing is on the wall, but the disdain for it, almost to the point of anger, kind of baffles me. I can't really grasp the non-historic angle, but that's just because I feel attached to it through my personal history. It's not really holding anything up, despite all of the grandiose plans we could come up with for the site and even those could be done in any number of places in downtown. Hardly anyone else has ever even tried to do something so different in a city known for sterility and tearing it down will send a message. However, I do think it's a message many here want sent.

In the end, when it's gone, Oklahoma City WILL be losing something and I only hope that what replaces it makes as much of an effort to bring something unique to our community as it did and that one day Oklahoma City will shift its development norm from tearing down our unique structures to redeveloping the vast amount of developments that never once considered aesthetics or community impact when it was first developed.
Fantastic post. Sums up exactly how I feel about this building.

I'm sorry, I didn't like Stage Center before and I would definately not be a fan if they did thise to it! This is bad, please no. That land could be developed into something amazing! I really want a mixed use development with ground floor retail and a hotel and residential on the upper floors. Please not this!

What "something amazing" do you think this land could be developed into?? Sounds like what you want is...cookie cutter development.

My thoughts are if they plan on spending $30-40 million dollars , they should demolish this eyesore structure and start with something whimiscal,

What, so people can be shocked by just a different piece of bold architecture instead? No. This is the only AIA award-winning structure that will grace this block. This is it. So, do we want to be a city of bland ranch houses and ranch-style offices and gray-beige office buildings, or do we want to inject something bold and beautiful, and UNIQUE into our concrete jungle? There is no start-over proposition with something better, because that "something better," as we know, is going to be a development that could just as well go one block over in almost all directions.

Yes, we need the development that people want to put on this site. But development, especially in a downtown that is so covered in surface parking, does not HAVE to be a win-lose proposition as people are making it out to be. I want to see win-lose changed to win-win, which would happen if people were willing to look beyond the very few sites that ARE actually built-up. This site is on the edge of downtown's core, and in all directions there is prime development land. You don't need to tear down Main Street, and you don't need to tear down OKC's lone piece of "starchitecture" that is our tie to the world of high design.

The only real hope is that a corporation or two or three steps up big time. I know they are looking to sell naming rights.

The problem is that there are so many needs (the AICCM to name an obvious example) and only so many local companies with deep pockets. Most of them have given and given...

Maybe Continental could step up big here, just as they are moving to OKC.


I would love to see that happen and I do agree that the structure is unique and there are many, many other parcels downtown to develop. I just don't want it to sit there empty and rusting indefinitely. I think a big part of the disdain for the place is that it's been in a bad state for so long that 1) few people have ever gone in and 2) many associate it with failure.