I think any major corporation would hesitate to foot the bill. Remember, just because it gets remodeled, doesn't mean it will generate any cash flow. That means a corporate donor would necessary forever. If it is too much of a drain, it may still close doors.

Using plans like I have submitted already, I think this site needs to be re-purposed but in such a way that it can do more to sustain itself (i.e. Skirvin). Between the Myriad Gardens and the new park, we already have a lot of unproductive land in that area.

Productivity...wealth creation. This is the crux of the preservation for the sake of preservation perspective. You can only have so many subsidized land uses within an area before it starts to drag down a region. Take a look at the CBD, especially the south half, and you can certainly see a pattern emerging. I am all for saving historic structures. But I am not sure I am for saving all of them if they are merely going to consume a ton of resources forever.

$20M-$30M would completely change forever (for the better) our transit system. That is a ton of money and I hope we don't become too naive about it for the sake of preservation. We need to be honest, set priorities, identify resources, and then be realistic about it.

Remember, downtown can't survive if it is merely a collection of neat things to look at. It must be dense, vibrant, and produce far more wealth than it takes to serve it.

+1

I think any major corporation would hesitate to foot the bill. Remember, just because it gets remodeled, doesn't mean it will generate any cash flow. That means a corporate donor would necessary forever. If it is too much of a drain, it may still close doors.

Using plans like I have submitted already, I think this site needs to be re-purposed but in such a way that it can do more to sustain itself (i.e. Skirvin). Between the Myriad Gardens and the new park, we already have a lot of unproductive land in that area.

Productivity...wealth creation. This is the crux of the preservation for the sake of preservation perspective. You can only have so many subsidized land uses within an area before it starts to drag down a region. Take a look at the CBD, especially the south half, and you can certainly see a pattern emerging. I am all for saving historic structures. But I am not sure I am for saving all of them if they are merely going to consume a ton of resources forever.

$20M-$30M would completely change forever (for the better) our transit system. That is a ton of money and I hope we don't become too naive about it for the sake of preservation. We need to be honest, set priorities, identify resources, and then be realistic about it.

Remember, downtown can't survive if it is merely a collection of neat things to look at. It must be dense, vibrant, and produce far more wealth than it takes to serve it.

Sid, you're a very smart man.

I think any major corporation would hesitate to foot the bill. Remember, just because it gets remodeled, doesn't mean it will generate any cash flow. That means a corporate donor would necessary forever. If it is too much of a drain, it may still close doors.

Using plans like I have submitted already, I think this site needs to be re-purposed but in such a way that it can do more to sustain itself (i.e. Skirvin). Between the Myriad Gardens and the new park, we already have a lot of unproductive land in that area.

Productivity...wealth creation. This is the crux of the preservation for the sake of preservation perspective. You can only have so many subsidized land uses within an area before it starts to drag down a region. Take a look at the CBD, especially the south half, and you can certainly see a pattern emerging. I am all for saving historic structures. But I am not sure I am for saving all of them if they are merely going to consume a ton of resources forever.

$20M-$30M would completely change forever (for the better) our transit system. That is a ton of money and I hope we don't become too naive about it for the sake of preservation. We need to be honest, set priorities, identify resources, and then be realistic about it.

Remember, downtown can't survive if it is merely a collection of neat things to look at. It must be dense, vibrant, and produce far more wealth than it takes to serve it.

... +2

I think any major corporation would hesitate to foot the bill. Remember, just because it gets remodeled, doesn't mean it will generate any cash flow. That means a corporate donor would necessary forever. If it is too much of a drain, it may still close doors.

Using plans like I have submitted already, I think this site needs to be re-purposed but in such a way that it can do more to sustain itself (i.e. Skirvin). Between the Myriad Gardens and the new park, we already have a lot of unproductive land in that area.

Productivity...wealth creation. This is the crux of the preservation for the sake of preservation perspective. You can only have so many subsidized land uses within an area before it starts to drag down a region. Take a look at the CBD, especially the south half, and you can certainly see a pattern emerging. I am all for saving historic structures. But I am not sure I am for saving all of them if they are merely going to consume a ton of resources forever.

$20M-$30M would completely change forever (for the better) our transit system. That is a ton of money and I hope we don't become too naive about it for the sake of preservation. We need to be honest, set priorities, identify resources, and then be realistic about it.

Remember, downtown can't survive if it is merely a collection of neat things to look at. It must be dense, vibrant, and produce far more wealth than it takes to serve it.

Even if you read the last paragraph first to the first paragraph last, it makes perfect sense!

+100

http://newsok.com/proposal-to-convert-stage-center-into-childrens-museum-in-oklahoma-city-due-wednesday/article/3652872

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

Sounds like anybody who disagrees with you, you try to make sound like an incompetent moron.

What about an urban skyscraper that was a mix of hotel/residential with a retail store fronts is "Cookie Cutter"? Especially in OKC, come to think of it, there is nothing here that fits that criteria. And the fact that you would twist what I said into "Cookie Cutter" just shows that if it isn't your opinion it doesn't matter! If something like that were to be located at the former ford dealership site you would love it. But that is no longer an option and I believe this is the next best place. Is that ok with you that I openly state my opinion?

http://www.skyscrapercity.com//showthread.php?t=365759
Post #1 and #8 on this page is what I want to see.

“Nothing will be permanently changed,” Karim said.


Zeeck said the proposal to be submitted Wednesday will likely not meet one key requirement of the request for proposals — evidence of financing. The request was advertised in December and Zeeck and Karim did not begin work until earlier this month. Zeeck said she has been approached by a family foundation and a second potential donor about financially supporting the project, but the group did not have a plan to present the donors until Sunday.

http://photos3.newsok.com/cache/r960-0eeea922153c65c9a81aa5f2822e174c.jpg

http://www.skyscrapercity.com//showthread.php?t=365759
Post #1 and #8 on this page is what I want to see.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a109/JDawgboy/MetLife-vi.jpg

http://images17.fotki.com/v8/photos/5/54967/2949615/AMLI2-vi.jpg

The article today on NewsOK basically makes it sound like they want to keep it EXACTLY like it is. However in my opinion it definitely needs modernistic updates. Don't forget that this is in a flood zone.

If something like that were to be located at the former ford dealership site you would love it. But that is no longer an option and I believe this is the next best place.

Why is it better than the empty lot next door?

Saving Johansen’s Stage Center

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/02/Johansen-Theater.asp

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.


Dollhouse Burlesque Okc Children's Museum

The problem with nonprofits owning their own real estate is that they don't know how to budget for capital expenditures, and usually lack expertise to manage/maintain the facility. They would be far better served by writing a rent check each month and leaving maintenance to a property owner. If they are well connected, they can find someone to buy and lease back the building to them, many times on favorable terms. In this case - Stage Center - it sounds like two young, creative and well connected people are searching for that person, but he hasn't been found. He simply may not exist.

http://photos3.newsok.com/cache/r960-0eeea922153c65c9a81aa5f2822e174c.jpg

The introduction I saw on this seems so out of left field. Like they have realized that the arts council has given up on it and they are looking for any other possible use that could keep it open. While it has been compared to child's toys on the outside the inside has been totally the opposite; brutalist, dark and almost depressing.

Plus the plan for the building handling flooding is making improvements to the basement seems absurd, invest tens of millions of dollars in a building that will probably contain a couple million dollars worth of items with some of the items not replaceable and they still be at elevated risk of direct, indirect water damage or mold.

The introduction I saw on this seems so out of left field. Like they have realized that the arts council has given up on it and they are looking for any other possible use that could keep it open. While it has been compared to child's toys on the outside the inside has been totally the opposite; brutalist, dark and almost depressing.

Plus the plan for the building handling flooding is making improvements to the basement seems absurd, invest tens of millions of dollars in a building that will probably contain a couple million dollars worth of items with some of the items not replaceable and they still be at elevated risk of direct, indirect water damage or mold.

You can do anything to an interior. Dark and depressing can become light and airy with the right lighting and wall coverings. And what the building contains compared to what is spent renovating it is a nonissue as well. There are many buildings that cost far more to build and are worth far more than what they contain. I consider the Stage Center a piece of sculpture, a relief from the dreary uniformity of downtown buildings. Even if they're decorated, downtown buildings are subtle and fairly monotonous. There is nothing subtle about the Stage Center. It is eye relief, to me. We all see things different ways, and have to appreciate that that possibility exists.

As far as amelioration of the flooding problem, that has to be doable, or the project will not stand a chance.

Why is it better than the empty lot next door?

Maybe I have my wires all crossed, but isn't the lot next door already tightly locked down as the location for the downtown grade school?

As a father of three children and a family therapist, this project wins my approval. Downtown needs activity and people even more than dense structures. What a way to add life and energy to this otherwise dead piece of real estate.

Maybe I have my wires all crossed, but isn't the lot next door already tightly locked down as the location for the downtown grade school?

yes it is

Maybe I have my wires all crossed, but isn't the lot next door already tightly locked down as the location for the downtown grade school?


OK. Then there's directly south and southwest of it, not much there. There's a ton of space at main and Dewey, really pretty much Main between dewey and Shartel is nothing. Go further north and there is a ton of space that isn't even being used for parking lots. Basically, there is a ton of empty space on the west side just sitting there and we want to tear down one of the most unique structures we have so we can preserve all that space? Is there some sort of perception issue where developers in Oklahoma City can only visualize something where there is already something? Of course, that assumes the lot would be developed quickly after demolition, which, again, would be weird given all the ample development opportunity that currently exists and nothing is being done with that.

As a father of three children and a family therapist, this project wins my approval. Downtown needs activity and people even more than dense structures. What a way to add life and energy to this otherwise dead piece of real estate.

Wouldn't you rather see $30 million go into exhibits and activities instead of concrete and sheet metal? The 'building' shouldn't suck up all the funds.

In the case of a children's museum, the architecture becomes the main draw. I am trusting that if this is a needed and valuable project the finances will take care of themselves.

In the case of a children's museum, the architecture becomes the main draw. I am trusting that if this is a needed and valuable project the finances will take care of themselves.

Then why bother with the children's museum?

Why on earth would any sane businessman possibly drawn to support the idea of a children's museum throw $30M at a project, knowing up front that the overwhelming majority of that money would go into a black hole, designed to resuscitate a decrepit, poorly conceived building that has already caused immeasurable damage to its most recent tenants? Why on earth wouldn't that same civic-minded businessman take that $30M and find a brand new place to build a world's class museum from scratch, knowing that 100% of the funds were going to the museum, not to a money pit perpetuated by a well-intentioned but thoroughly misguided sense of philanthropy?

And let's not forget the other side of this coin - what happens if someone DOES pony up the money to fund this project, only to find out this particular artichoke offers layer-after-layer of still more unexpected problems entailing still more expense? Or to find itself as the signature sponsor for a facility just before the next-iteration disaster befalls the building and victimizes yet another civic organization?

Why should any local philanthropic group, such as a children's museum organization, be compelled to put their future in the hands of the vagaries of this old building? If we really cared about such a project, we'd create something wonderful and new for the kids... not for the folks whose true motive is nothing more than to prop up a crumbling disaster of a structure.

Most kids don't care about architecture and that is the fundamental problem with this proposal. A children's museum should be about kids, not about saving a building from a wrecking ball. As I said earlier, it is too bad an otherwise noble cause is being subjugated to saving a building. OKC could easily build a world class Children's Museum for half the cost of just getting stage center in good enough condition to have the orange warning sticker taken off the doors. It is such a shame that money in this instance would be spent on concrete and sheet metal instead of hands on activities for the children the whole projected is supposedly being done for. I hate to use the term 'human shield', especially when discussing children, but this seems to be getting pretty close to it in my view.

With all the vacant land around downtown wouldn't it make much more sense to build from the ground up, have a better facility, and save $20 million in the process?

. . . I am trusting that if this is a needed and valuable project the finances will take care of themselves.

Unfortunately, this is not always the case especially in a troubled economy. . . although I suppose "needed" is a debatable qualifier.

I'm not married to the proposal, but do think it's a worthy last ditch effort to "wed" the interests of the community and the preservationists. The project designers see value in the architecture and its potential to capture the attention of Oklahoma City children and families. I am happy for the spirit of preservation, despite the varied opinions over its design merit.

I'm not married to the proposal, but do think it's a worthy last ditch effort to "wed" the interests of the community and the preservationists. The project designers see value in the architecture and its potential to capture the attention of Oklahoma City children and families. I am happy for the spirit of preservation, despite the varied opinions over its design merit.

I know I've been very harsh about this project, but believe it or not I'm an advocate of sensible restoration and preservation efforts. The restoration of the old Central High School was a wonderful effort. Many of our other older buildings are receiving a similar treatment. But I also believe at some point the cause of preservation must yield to the practical, albeit ugly, realities of the costs and physical limitations of reasonable restoration. Given the burden on the city (and to its most recent tenants) this property has become, I personally believe this particular project has pole vaulted beyond the scope and breadth of reason, and the time has come for the city to realize a new future for this property.

There are obviously two schools of thought on Stage Center and both are opinions.

There are obviously two schools of thought on Stage Center and both are opinions.

I guess that depends on what is trying to be accomplished; building a children's museum or saving stage center. If the goal is a children's museum then spending $20 to $30 million fixing Stage Center should be a non-starter.

If money is not an issue then pour the $30 million into FNC and put it there. 30 floors of fun and education.

Plus didn't they say it would take 30 million to make it a theater again, if it is a children's museum how are you going to work the large amount of slope from the theater seats out in a way that does not cost more?

Maybe we should see what the architects propose.

Most kids don't care about architecture and that is the fundamental problem with this proposal. A children's museum should be about kids, not about saving a building from a wrecking ball. As I said earlier, it is too bad an otherwise noble cause is being subjugated to saving a building. OKC could easily build a world class Children's Museum for half the cost of just getting stage center in good enough condition to have the orange warning sticker taken off the doors. It is such a shame that money in this instance would be spent on concrete and sheet metal instead of hands on activities for the children the whole projected is supposedly being done for. I hate to use the term 'human shield', especially when discussing children, but this seems to be getting pretty close to it in my view.

With all the vacant land around downtown wouldn't it make much more sense to build from the ground up, have a better facility, and save $20 million in the process?

It ain't my money. If some guy wants to spend 30 mil to fix up Stage Center, more power to him. It doesn't hurt me. It doesn't matter what you or I would spend our money on. I'm not going to begrudge them the chance to fix it up if they can find some rich person who wants to spend money on this project.

The last time I was in Stage Center, I was a little kid. I think we went on a field trip there or something. Maybe I've never been in it. I do remember running up and down the ramps when I was about 9 or 10. Maybe we went inside. It would have still been open then. It seemed like some big jungle gym or something. I think kids would like it. It's fun and different and ugly as hell, but kids wouldn't care about that. It looks like something designed to be played on.

As far as investments go, there's a spectrum. On the one end, you have "spend all the money on a new children's museum". On the other end, you have "save Stage Center". It's entirely possible that at some point in between, you inspire an investor. "Build a children's museum AND save this big weird thing? Sold!" It doesn't necessarily matter that it's not the most efficient way to do it. If that's what their pet millionaire wants, then shine on you crazy diamond.

[QUOTE=betts;513664]You can do anything to an interior. Dark and depressing can become light and airy with the right lighting and wall coverings.[QUOTE]

Agreed, betts. As someone who attended events there during it's heyday, I promise the interior never seemed dark or depressing. I actually found it rather inspiring.

It ain't my money. If some guy wants to spend 30 mil to fix up Stage Center, more power to him. It doesn't hurt me.

That is where we differ. I think the large setbacks at Stage Center do in fact hurt the area around it.

That is where we differ. I think the large setbacks at Stage Center do in fact hurt the area around it.

I don't see a lot of evidence that anything that has happened at Stage Center has hurt the area around it, which includes the new Myriad Gardens, the Devon Tower, the plans for a new school, the Convention Center, the Boulevard. And, again, I think the playfulness of the Stage Center design perfectly complements both the Myriad Gardens and an elementary school. Any outdoor landscaping/sculptures that would add to the whimsy would make that area a visual relief to the CBD.

Stage Center has been there for 40 years and it sure didn't spur any adjacent development during that time. All those other things you mentioned are directly related to Larry Nichols, MAPS 4 Kids, and MAPS III. And it is pretty well documented that large setbacks discourage pedestrians.

I'm not saying Stage Center encouraged development, but I don't see any evidence anything else downtown before Devon did either. And relandscaped and repurposed, the Stage Center could feel like an interactive sculpture within a park, and an extension of the Myriad Gardens, both inviting interaction from the school.

Even during the early 80s when downtown was booming the area around Stage Center never saw any development. All new construction was concentrated near the existing buildings. Personally I would like to see Stage Center moved to Central Park.

Most kids don't care about architecture and that is the fundamental problem with this proposal.

My son loves it and the number one thing he does with his legos is build skyscrapers. He is also infatuated with the Devon tower. Kids love this stuff actually.

I also remember that my favorite part about going there when I was a kid was the building itself. Not because it was unique and not because of its outer aesthetic. The layout of the building just begs to be explored. IMO, it also felt exactly like a kids building. It's more like on overgrown structure that some kid might build in his backyard than it is something adults can appreciate, as you can see here. We're the ones who like symmetry and familiarity. Kids are the ones who are attracted to the new and different.

I think the children's museum is a great idea, but I 100% realize it is probably not feasible. However, unlike how Soonerdave feels about it, I think the most idiotic thing would be to sink $30 million dollars into an entirely new structure for a kids museum when that money could be spent on bringing this building into service. Honestly, I think it's a building that kids actually enjoy for the building itself. At least, that's how it was for me. Compared to the to the science museum it's a venerable wonderland on its own.

That is just the thing BDP - an entirely new structure would be way south of $30 million. The entire Aloft hotel in Deep Deuce is only $18 million.

Obviously, anybody who contributes a large sum would be at least as interested in preserving the structure as establishing a museum.

The museum would just be a mechanism to save and restore the building.


This whole thing started with "How can we save Stage Center?" rather than "What is the best way to establish a children's museum?"

Perhaps the only way for both goals to be achieved is to combine them. Not sure either will happen without the other.

Obviously, anybody who contributes a large sum would be at least as interested in preserving the structure as establishing a museum.

The museum would just be a mechanism to save and restore the building.


This whole thing started with "How can we save Stage Center?" rather than "What is the best way to establish a children's museum?"

Perhaps the only way for both goals to be achieved is to combine them. Not sure either will happen without the other.

What about the Rock Island building in Bricktown? Surely it can be rehabed for less than $30 million and it has a parking lot.

If I were a kid I would have more fun in a colorful spaceship looking thing than an old brick warehouse. But that's just me.

What about the Rock Island building in Bricktown? Surely it can be rehabed for less than $30 million and it has a parking lot.

I think you are missing a very fundamental point: There are a bunch of people with specific interest in saving the Stage Center building. There have been no "save the Rock Island Plow Building" groups formed and it's also under no immediate threat to be demolished.

This isn't about other buildings or sites... It's about trying to find a way to save the Stage Center. It's why RFP's were sent out soliciting ideas.

Again, the museum just seems like the most feasible mechanism to save the building and also could provide at least a decent venue for that use.


There might not be the love for Stage Center as compared to the Skirvin, but it was a similar process in that it started with the idea of how to save the building, not just to bring another hotel downtown. Clearly, there were lots of other sites and cheaper options for that.

This isn't about other buildings or sites... It's about trying to find a way to save the Stage Center. It's why RFP's were sent out soliciting ideas.

Again, the museum just seems like the most feasible mechanism to save the building and also could provide at least a decent venue for that use.


Like I said, that is the problem. The Children's museum is essentially a human shield. I mean, who can oppose a Children's Museum? An otherwise good cause has to save the building first. Those resources would be better spent going to the museum itself.

I would suggest you only feel that way because you don't want the building saved.

If you did (like the people trying to make this happen) you'd see it as great opportunity to accomplish two good things.


You are certainly not alone in wanting the building gone but you need to respect the fact that lots of people are passionate about saving it and that doesn't make their motives bad.

Also, I'm sure whoever ends up putting up the funding will be sold as much on the building as the museum. If there was such a drive for a chidren's museum it would have happened by now... At the very least Stage Center has brought the idea to the forefront.

That is just the thing BDP - an entirely new structure would be way south of $30 million. The entire Aloft hotel in Deep Deuce is only $18 million.

Very true. Of course, the Aloft isn't going to be a unique structure nor is it really trying to be. Sure, it's way better than the Residence Inn, but its type of modern is everywhere.

Either way, I totally get it. Stage Center is probably a lost cause. There's just not that much money in this city and what there is of it isn't interested in stuff like this. I genuinely like Stage Center, but even more than that, I think I just get tired of how nothing is economically worth saving here, yet it works in so many other places. I think if we were good at saving things and people did care about restoring things here, it would be easier to swallow. It just seems like different day, same dismissive approach to structures of significance in the city. With everything that has been positive in the last ten years, this keeps happening to remind us that we still don't have a city worth saving.

I would suggest you only feel that way because you don't want the building saved.


You are semi-right about that. It should be saved - just not at that location. I would fully support spending $30 million to move it to Central Park and re-opening it as a Children's Museum. Selling the land it is on could fund the move and the donations could be used to create the museum.

^

That is not realistic and there hasn't been any consideration of that option.


The bottom line is that building is either going to be saved by this children's museum idea or it's going to get demolished.

Stage Center is probably a lost cause. There's just not that much money in this city and what there is of it isn't interested in stuff like this. I genuinely like Stage Center, but even more than that, I think I just get tired of how nothing is economically worth saving here, yet it works in so many other places. I think if we were good at saving things and people did care about restoring things here, it would be easier to swallow. It just seems like different day, same dismissive approach to structures of significance in the city. With everything that has been positive in the last ten years, this keeps happening to remind us that we still don't have a city worth saving.

If this building isn't saved, I won't see it as confirmation that nobody cares about any building; just that not enough people cared about this particular one.


Yes, we have a horrible past when it comes to these things but if you haven't noticed, so do most other cities. Urban renewal of the 60's and 70's is also greatly simplified in these discussions because most don't understand why it happened in the first place. The reason so many places were torn down is because they had been abandoned for a very long time and huge areas -- often immediately adjacent to the CDB -- were completely blighted. Clearing blocks at least cleaned up the area which was the most that could be hoped for at that time -- and why it was allowed to happen in the first place.

The people, shopping, movie theaters and streetcars were all long gone before any of this came to pass; urban renewal was the result of people leaving downtown not the cause of it.


Anyway, it's certainly true we need to scrutinize every structure before pulling it down. But there are literally thousands of older buildings that are still standing, many renovated at much greater expense than new construction, so that's direct evidence that lots of people care.


I think in most cases much is done to preserve buildings but that doesn't not guarantee -- nor should it -- that every single building will be saved. And when one or two aren't, it doesn't mean we haven't learned a lot from the past.

To echo Pete' comment. Urban renewal of the 70s was not the problem. It was urban flight in the late 40s and 50s brought on by GI home loans and the automobile that left most urban America vacant and allowed concentration of the poor and under-class.

A friend of mine (another former Main Street Manager, now a state senator in Missouri) said the downfall of the urban neighborhood could be traced to three main things: the automobile, television, and refrigerated air.

Ironically, I think the resurgence in urban living is due in part to Friends and Seinfeld that reintroduced the concept to America.

If somebody really wants a scapegoat, it was our government that colluded with the auto and oil industries to build roads and highways and kill the streetcar. I'm sure that seemed like a great idea at the time.

To illustrate the massive influence of autos & oil, just take a look at Canada and Australia; two young countries with much less density and yet their cities and suburbs grew in such a way that mass transit and people never left the central core. Why? Because they weren't trying to feed these big industries and things just gradually evolved in a pretty orderly fashion.

Really, the United States is alone in this ridiculous sprawl problem and cars & oil are why.

If somebody really wants a scapegoat, it was our government that colluded with the auto and oil industries to build roads and highways and kill the streetcar. I'm sure that seemed like a great idea at the time.

To illustrate the massive influence of autos & oil, just take a look at Canada and Australia; two young countries with much less density and yet their cities and suburbs grew in such a way that mass transit and people never left the central core. Why? Because they weren't trying to feed these big industries and things just gradually evolved in a pretty orderly fashion.

Really, the United States is alone in this ridiculous sprawl problem and cars & oil are why.

Yeah, housing starts and automobile sales still touted as key economic indicators to this day. Hence the GI Bill-era mortgage restrictions on multifamily. Like you said, I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time. I don't think it was a nefarious conspiracy, but a conspiracy nonetheless. Law of unintended consequences.

All that crazy growth was seen as an outward sign of prosperity, which became even more important during the Cold War.

And unfortunately, this way of thinking is still ingrained in the American culture and we can't seem to shake it. For every urban pioneer there are thousands that move further and further out, living in bigger and bigger homes and driving bigger and bigger cars.

In one generation, virtually all the people I went to high school with moved from NW OKC to very far North OKC, Edmond or Deer Creek.


A few years ago, I took an informal poll of about 200 people on a message board similar to this and discovered that the average amount of square footage per person in their present home was FOUR TIMES what it was when they were kids. And I bet the average commute has increased almost as much.

I think people just do what they think is expected of them without thinking about it too much. Like you say, the big house in the suburbs is also a generally-accepted symbol for success, and everybody wants to look successful in the eyes of their friends, family and coworkers. Sometimes it's just easy to do what the crowd does.

Speaking of Stage Center...

March 1 2012

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7067/6798927088_0bb3be7045_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7050/6798927290_c35f0a92a2_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7067/6798927528_0563ef300f_b.jpg

In one generation, virtually all the people I went to high school with moved from NW OKC to very far North OKC, Edmond or Deer Creek.Don't you find it a bit ironic that you're now located in Thousand Oaks?

I moved to the L.A. area in the fall of 1959; initially I found a house in Granada Hills, but as soon as the lease expired I bought one of the first homes built in Santa Susana. The reason for going so far out was strictly financial -- I could afford the new development; I could not afford anything in the San Fernando Valley itself.

And at that time, Thousand Oaks was even more remote from anything urban, than is Kingfisher today. While the Simi Valley itself was rapidly building up, Thousand Oaks remained a mostly rural setting.

I'm sure that's no longer the case, but my point is that "sprawl" isn't limited to Oklahoma City and its surrounding areas. Even though L.A. (in the basin, at least) seems to retain its urbanity, the Valley had almost nothing in common with the Basin -- although each specific community, such as Van Nuys, Panorama City, Chatsworth, or Canoga Park, did retain a neighborhood atmosphere. The Simi, on the other hand, had virtually nothing to offer -- it was a classic case of sprawl!

I think the children's museum is a great idea, but I 100% realize it is probably not feasible. However, unlike how Soonerdave feels about it, I think the most idiotic thing would be to sink $30 million dollars into an entirely new structure for a kids museum when that money could be spent on bringing this building into service. Honestly, I think it's a building that kids actually enjoy for the building itself. At least, that's how it was for me. Compared to the to the science museum it's a venerable wonderland on its own.

BDP, here's the whole problem: I believe the notion of "bringing this building back into service" is an illusion. Now, its $30M to remove the loading dock, and slap on some paint, and its all good, right? Let's say they remove the loading dock. What happens when another rainstorm hits, and we find out there's another flood from some other source of water? Or, worse still, what if some, entirely new problem arises? I've grown up in OKC, and I know the history of the Stage Center nee Mummers Theater as a facility has been, to be generous, problematic.

On top of the prospect of still more future problems is what happens to the prospective Children's Museum? Do we go back to the same corporate benefactor and ask them to write another check with a promise of "oh, THIS time it'll be fixed..."

When does it stop? When do we finally say enough?

It isn't like that building has only been vacant for a few days or a few weeks. Its entire forty-plus year history has been splattered with problems. I think its naive to assume all its problems are going to go away with one interval of rehab. Its only a matter of time until some other disaster befalls this building and its tenant, they move out, and we start this dance all over again.

This isn't about failing to learn from history, or blowing up our past. Its about the realization that this *one* building, because of its checkered and troubled structural history, no longer merits saving merely for the sake of saving it. Someone else with the right resources and vision deserves a chance to do something fresh, vibrant, and new on that property. The arguments about AIA prestige carry exactly zero weight with me. Zero. And I know that's an unfathomable attitude to some here. All I can say is its honest.

Mind you, I love the idea of a Children's Museum. We used to take our kids to the Jasmine Moran museum down in Seminole and it was terrific. If I had the means to make something like that happen in Bricktown, I'd gladly help, but I don't. And I hate to see a great idea like a children's museum get wrapped up in an SC rehab project.

All that crazy growth was seen as an outward sign of prosperity, which became even more important during the Cold War.

And unfortunately, this way of thinking is still ingrained in the American culture and we can't seem to shake it. For every urban pioneer there are thousands that move further and further out, living in bigger and bigger homes and driving bigger and bigger cars.

In one generation, virtually all the people I went to high school with moved from NW OKC to very far North OKC, Edmond or Deer Creek.


A few years ago, I took an informal poll of about 200 people on a message board similar to this and discovered that the average amount of square footage per person in their present home was FOUR TIMES what it was when they were kids. And I bet the average commute has increased almost as much.

Keep in mind though that a great deal of the suburban growth in the 60's-70's was due to white flight, with the forced busing of the era driving people in droves to Moore, Edmond, etc. Right or wrong, it was at least among the critical factors hurting OKC in that time.