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.

Actually, the first suburbs resulted from electric streetcars, not cars or busses. The high cost and cramped quarters in the city was abandoned when people could afford quieter lives and private residences by taking advantage of cheap commutes on electric streetcars. Cars and highways just let people who wanted out of inner city living do it.

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

Are you serious? I thought you were a student of urban development.

It is really probably due in part to "The Honeymooners".

Yes, we have a horrible past when it comes to these things but if you haven't noticed, so do most other cities.

Well, I can go to SF, Chicago, NY, even LA and see tons of restored and preserved buildings of various historic nature. There's a lot better preservation in many smaller markets than here also. Even Tulsa has been better. No doubt most markets have lost many along the way was well, but they had way more to lose. We have hardly any left and we keep tearing down the best of what's left.

But again, it has been established that this is not economically feasible in Oklahoma City and this is a true sign of where we are compared to other markets. Carl Edwards even said it would be generations before preservation makes sense in Oklahoma City. We can not generate enough return on our assets to preserve them. I get it. The money is just not here.

I'm just trying to keep it all in total context. You guys keep saying this "one" building doesn't mean much, but I have heard that about every building that has been torn down. Again, if it was just the one building, it would be easier to swallow. But it's not just this one building. It's the way of Oklahoma City and it does show.


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

Exactly. That's how I feel on a much broader scale.

Well, I can go to SF, Chicago, NY, even LA and see tons of restored and preserved buildings of various historic nature. No doubt they have lost many along the way was well, but they had way more to lose. We have hardly any left and we keep tearing down the best of what's left.

Not even close to fair comparisons. All of those cities simply have many more buildings of all types. I assure you that all have lost many more historic structures than OKC ever even had. Pick one city and I could site a single urban renewal project that flattened an area bigger than all of downtown OKC.

And economics cut both ways. Yes, there is more money in bigger cities but that often works against saving historic structures; the land frequently is so valuable that the buildings are completely expendable from a development point of view. How do you think all those tall buildings got built in America's downtowns during the 60's, 70's and 80's?

I really think people in OKC are so scarred from the Pei Plan experience that many have completely lost perspective. Yes, it makes me ill to think the Baum Building was replaced by the Century Center but that same scenario was played out thousands of times in even the most healthy urban communities. I think the lesson has largely been learned -- time to move on.


And it's simply not true we are tearing down the best of what's left. Some people love the Stage Center but many do not; First National Center, the Skirvin and hundreds of other buildings have been preserved and aren't going anywhere.

Going forward, I'm sure at least a few more regrettable decisions will be made but if the alternative is to never even consider these options than that risk is more than worth it.

What OKC needs to do is quit building out so much. We have loads of construction going on in this city, but it's cheaper to move out an extra mile or two instead of building within the city. The city pays for more roads, more water and sewer pipes, more schools, more telephone poles and electrical wiring, etc. The city should divest itself of much of the outlying land, refuse to provide services to those areas.

Building in the suburbs is artificially inexpensive. The land may be cheaper, but the city foots the bill for linking those developments to civilization. We should change our regulations to promote building up instead of building out. Now, this won't stop people from moving to Edmond, but we can stop financing the outgrowth.

You can't tell me there's not the money available to save buildings downtown when we build a giant outlet mall in Yukon. We could have enough private investment to rebuild the Core to Shore area in a year, if people weren't so obsessed with cookie cutter housing additions. We should not make it any easier to build these economic dead-ends.

Not even close to fair comparisons.

I meant it more to compare what some markets can do and we can't, because of our economics in order to reinforce how, despite the progress of downtown, renovation is still infeasible for most of our older properties. I also provided all of the caveats you did. They had more to lose, etc.

The funny thing about the Skirvin is that it is actually an example of the opposite. For many years, people said it was economically infeasible to restore it and should be torn down. After significant public investment, it is now the premiere hotel downtown specifically because of its historic nature and was even actively trying to expand. So, it was economically infeasible to save and ultimately needed public assistance for restoration after which it became the best place in the city to stay. Yet, still, after that people don't see the value in restoration to the extent that it can happen without public assistance.


time to move on.

Will do. No matter how many Skirvins, MidTowns, and Bricktowns we have, the argument for restoration and preservation will still ring hollow to most ears. We can talk about the supposed mistakes of IM Pei or urban renewal ad naseum, but most know that it will be different this time around and that our reasons for demolition must be better than they were during that period. Besides, if our largely commodities based economy hadn't fallen apart at the wrong time, Pei's plan could have been completed and then we would have been allowed the realization that it was a great plan and the structures that were lost were, in fact, disposable.

Yeah I really wish that outlet mall would have built down town instead of where it is.

Yeah I really wish that outlet mall would have built down town instead of where it is.

This sounds a bit like sarcasm. Not sure. I'm not saying we need an outlet mall downtown. What I am saying is that there's clearly enough money in this city to build a massive structure out in the middle of nowhere. There's clearly enough to fix Stage Center, or redevelop any of the properties downtown. We just need a small change to the economics of the situation.

To follow up, and to tie my comment more closely to the topic, I think Stage Center could be a very valuable asset to this city. Now, I'm not really the biggest fan of its architecture. I'm certainly not a fan of it sitting there and collecting dust. If someone came along tomorrow and wanted to tear it down to build a 40 story tower in its place, I would not shed a single tear. But I don't think we should tear it down just to tear it down.

Unfortunately, what we have right now just doesn't work. We've got a very striking piece of architecture in this city (I didn't say pretty or aesthetically pleasing, but it definitely stands out). We hide it in an out-of-the-way area of downtown, where people rarely venture. It's surrounded by parking garages, empty lots, and other places with minimal foot traffic. Then we landscape around the thing to try and hide it from anyone who might see it. This is about the worst combination we could have.

If you're going to have something weird like Stage Center, you need to call attention to it. Cut down the trees, repaint the sucker, put up a bunch of funky lighting. Right now it's the weird thing hidden in the corner of downtown. If someone notices it, they think "what the hell is that?" But you can't really get a good view of it. We should put the thing on display. Build up the area around it, landscape it properly so that every eye is drawn to it, and celebrate the weirdness. It should be a big piece of abstract art, just like that red thing that looks like a bunch of Lee Press-On Nails in front of Leadership Square. Let people go inside it, experience it. Epcot Center doesn't try to hide their giant pokey ball. They put in in Disney World commercials. People still wonder what the hell it is, but it makes them curious.

If we're going to keep the giant spaceship looking thing downtown, then let's draw emphasis to the giant spaceship looking thing downtown. OKC wants to separate itself from Dallas and Kansas City and Tulsa, well this is the one thing those cities don't have. It is safe to say that visitors who come here will have never seen anything like it.

There's clearly enough to fix Stage Center,

As I mentioned in response to BDP, that's a fiction. Stage Center is a money pit. We have absolutely no way of knowing what the end game cost is going to be for SC, and given its checkered past, that's more than enough reason to say "pass."


You guys keep saying this "one" building doesn't mean much, but I have heard that about every building that has been torn down. Again, if it was just the one building, it would be easier to swallow. But it's not just this one building. It's the way of Oklahoma City and it does show.

BDP, for me, it most certainly *is* this *one* building held against the broader context of urban renewal. I grew up during the 70's, and remembered all the fine old buildings that were blown up seemingly every other week during the furtive years of the Pei Plan, and I also remember how my mom hated the Pei Plan even though I was largely too young to have a clue what it was. And she didn't hate it just because it led to old buildings being blown up or torn down. As a near-lifer in OKC, she saw what the Pei Plan did on a generational scale, and the damage it did to Downtown OKC.

So, when someone comes to tell me about urban renewal, and expresses a desire to preserve classic old buildings, I don't have an inherent problem with it at all. And I remember the discussions about the Skirvin, such that I recall the biggest issue was the size of the rooms being too small for a contemporary upscale hotel. There wasn't this overriding sense that the building was in the shadow of collapse, as has seemed to be the case for the Stage Center for years. And I guarantee you there was decidedly greater public sentiment to rehab the Skirvin than there ever has been for SC.

So, when all is said and done, I hope I can convey that I don't have this "plow everything down" attitude merely because newer is better. I have a problem with this building.

This sounds a bit like sarcasm. Not sure. I'm not saying we need an outlet mall downtown. What I am saying is that there's clearly enough money in this city to build a massive structure out in the middle of nowhere. There's clearly enough to fix Stage Center, or redevelop any of the properties downtown. We just need a small change to the economics of the situation.

Don't know where to start to remark on this. Total apples and oranges. This is like saying we need another library downtown because they added the IMAX in Moore. Say what??????

If we're going to keep the giant spaceship looking thing downtown, then let's draw emphasis to the giant spaceship looking thing downtown. OKC wants to separate itself from Dallas and Kansas City and Tulsa, well this is the one thing those cities don't have. It is safe to say that visitors who come here will have never seen anything like it.

Quoted for truth. This entire post was very reasonable, although I would be sad to see Stage Center go unlike the author.

I meant it more to compare what some markets can do and we can't, because of our economics in order to reinforce how, despite the progress of downtown, renovation is still infeasible for most of our older properties. I also provided all of the caveats you did. They had more to lose, etc.

The funny thing about the Skirvin is that it is actually an example of the opposite. For many years, people said it was economically infeasible to restore it and should be torn down. After significant public investment, it is now the premiere hotel downtown specifically because of its historic nature and was even actively trying to expand. So, it was economically infeasible to save and ultimately needed public assistance for restoration after which it became the best place in the city to stay. Yet, still, after that people don't see the value in restoration to the extent that it can happen without public assistance.



Will do. No matter how many Skirvins, MidTowns, and Bricktowns we have, the argument for restoration and preservation will still ring hollow to most ears. We can talk about the supposed mistakes of IM Pei or urban renewal ad naseum, but most know that it will be different this time around and that our reasons for demolition must be better than they were during that period. Besides, if our largely commodities based economy hadn't fallen apart at the wrong time, Pei's plan could have been completed and then we would have been allowed the realization that it was a great plan and the structures that were lost were, in fact, disposable.

I don't think there was ever any serious talk about demolishing the Skirvin and I know that never came close to happening because absolutely nothing was being built during the time it was closed.

All I remember was common acknowledgement that it needed to be reopened as a hotel lots of city leaders got behind making that happen, even though it took several attempts.

Depends on what you term "serious" talk. To borrow a phrase told to me by someone very, very close to the issue at the time, it "would frost your beard to know" who was actively lobbying behind the scenes to have it torn down, just to be rid of the building. Many, many people (including important ones) termed it an eyesore that was preventing further development in downtown.

Finding someone today who will admit to thinking it was a good idea to demolish the Skirvin is about as difficult as finding someone who voted against the original MAPs, but believe me, they existed.

Depends on what you term "serious" talk. To borrow a phrase told to me by someone very, very close to the issue at the time, it "would frost your beard to know" who was actively lobbying behind the scenes to have it torn down, just to be rid of the building. Many, many people (including important ones) termed it an eyesore that was preventing further development in downtown.

Finding someone today who will admit to thinking it was a good idea to demolish the Skirvin is about as difficult as finding someone who voted against the original MAPs, but believe me, they existed.

I believe someone told you that but I'm even more sure that is a wildly exaggerated tale as it defies all common sense and is completely contrary to the public facts about how the building was handled from almost the moment it closed.

Don't know where to start to remark on this. Total apples and oranges. This is like saying we need another library downtown because they added the IMAX in Moore. Say what??????

I don't know where the confusion is coming from. I will try and clarify.

There is a lot of construction going on in this city. Apartment complexes, shopping centers, restaurants, grocery stores. Much of this construction takes place not downtown. It does so because developers believe they can make more money building hundreds of cookie-cutter homes on NW 210th, along with their attendant shopping malls, mega-grocers, and movie theaters, than they can building downtown. We need to change the economics that are currently pushing this outward growth. If the developers here can afford to build 200 McMansions in the middle of BFE, then they can afford to build 200 brownstones in Bricktown. If the money exists to build a giant outlet mall in Yukon, then the money exists to build shopping in downtown.

Enough stuff has been built in this city in the last year to fill the Core to Shore area. It's not a matter of "we don't have the money in this city". It's a matter of how we choose to invest that money.

Hoya, your reasoning is still off. First of all, the outlet mall was not built anywhere near Yukon. It is in OKC at Council Road and I40. The closest point in Yukon is 4 miles away. I'm all for urban infill but you can't force the economics for that. Under current conditions that mall would have been out of place and a complete failure downtown. Developers choose to invest their money where they will get a reasonable return for their investment. All the city can do is to try to make the infrastructure available to encourage downtown development and give incentives when it is merited. This all getting very off topic though and as I've stated several times previously I'm greatly in favor of anything that can preserve and enhance the Stage Center. Opining that because there is money to develop a suburban outlet mall means that there is money readily available to put into the preservation of the Stage Center is hardly realistic.

Generally retail and other development follows demand and costs. I guess people just expect to turn off and on the laws of gravity at will.

Generally retail and other development follows demand and costs. I guess people just expect to turn off and on the laws of gravity at will.

Well you have to somehow cause a shift. The only way City Hall could do it is if they could get multi-county laws passed against sprawl, because if OKC bans sprawl and Moore and Edmond and Yukon and (you get the point) don't, then OKC simply shoots itself in the foot. So realistically, the only way to do this would be at the state level, where politics are reeeally weird. But I think such a proposal would have a fighting chance if you did it more from the perspective of "saving Oklahoma's farmland" and less from the perspective of banning harmful developments.

There are a lot of cities in North America with urban growth boundaries now--most cities in Canada, Portland, a few other U.S. cities.

I just can't believe we would save a geodesic dome that was 'in the style' of a famous architect but not his creation, an old hotel that, while having lots of nostalgia and some history associated with it, was not all that architecturally ground-breaking, and that we would put up such a strong fight to save (but ultimately lose) an old YMCA. But that with this building... which really is an architectural one of a kind, designed by an important architect, and is recognized so the world around... then I can't help but think that city preservationists can't see the forest for the trees. There are good decisions and there are bad decisions. Every bad decision I have ever seen in my work life was backed up by statistics, costing data, and strong opinions. But at the end of the day it was still the wrong decision and ultimately, after it was too late, this was realized. I can't help but feel that folks who would just allow Stage Center to be torn down have fallen into this same trap.

Hoya, your reasoning is still off. First of all, the outlet mall was not built anywhere near Yukon. It is in OKC at Council Road and I40. The closest point in Yukon is 4 miles away. I'm all for urban infill but you can't force the economics for that. Under current conditions that mall would have been out of place and a complete failure downtown.

You're both making strong points, but you're talking past each other. Hoyasooner is making a great point about resource management, or lack thereof. Because it's politically trendy right now to stick your head in the sand, we absolutely refuse to engage in public economic resource management, whilst every other developed nation does and we used to. That's how we started to sprawl in the first place. Anytime you cause a shift, in the case of the past the shift from urban to sprawl after WWII or in the case of today attempting to reverse that, massive subsidies, incentives, and government wrangling are always involved. That's the way it is.

Ljbab is making a point about rational choice. Developers generally work within the laws (except when they know they can get around them) and ordinances, because they know that their competition also has to follow the same rules. The system works only because it supposedly applies to all. In this scenario, and because of rational choice, the laws and ordinances also set the minimum development standards. However the problem with the Outlet Mall as a case study example in real estate economics is that an outlet mall is destination retail; most of its business is coming from a long ways away. Most people have been in agreement that downtown retail will need to achieve destination status in order to be capable of sustaining itself, simply because the rooftops don't exist downtown, and even with more development, that is still too unique of a demographic. Throw out the normal laws of economics that would otherwise apply to a normal strip mall retail center surrounded by typical suburbia.

To tell the truth, it's more of a matter of safety. Developers feel safe with sprawl. Urban development absolutely requires creativity and innovation, and yes you can be more successful, but you can also be a lot less successful too. The people with track records downtown are doing stuff, the people with track records in the suburbs are more conservative and tepid.

I just can't believe we would save a geodesic dome that was 'in the style' of a famous architect but not his creation, an old hotel that, while having lots of nostalgia and some history associated with it, was not all that architecturally ground-breaking, and that we would put up such a strong fight to save (but ultimately lose) an old YMCA. But that with this building... which really is an architectural one of a kind, designed by an important architect, and is recognized so the world around... then I can't help but think that city preservationists can't see the forest for the trees. There are good decisions and there are bad decisions. Every bad decision I have ever seen in my work life was backed up by statistics, costing data, and strong opinions. But at the end of the day it was still the wrong decision and ultimately, after it was too late, this was realized. I can't help but feel that folks who would just allow Stage Center to be torn down have fallen into this same trap.

There's a reason its "one of a kind". We could replicate that building today on an empty field easily if we wanted to. Its a lot harder to replicate buildings like the Skirvin that were built in the early 1900's. That kind of hand craftsmanship doesn't exist anymore.

I believe someone told you that but I'm even more sure that is a wildly exaggerated tale as it defies all common sense and is completely contrary to the public facts about how the building was handled from almost the moment it closed.
I don't know what to tell you other than I know several people who were closely involved, including members of the Skirvin Solutions Committee. I also know the name(s) of person(s) who were lobbying to have the building demolished, and it truly did "frost my beard." Additionally, there was at least some public sentiment supporting demolition, including published letters to the editor in The Oklahoman.

Pete, this was to some extent a ruse - designed to get people off of high center - and Willa is NOT who I am talking about, but this illustrates how freely people were throwing around "demolish" and "Skirvin" in the same sentence at one point:


Skirvin May Be Declared Dilapidated

Steve Lackmeyer, Jack Money
Published: July 8, 1999
The once luxurious Skirvin Hotel's rags-to-riches possibilities are getting dimmer as city leaders consider declaring the downtown landmark dilapidated.

Oklahoma City Councilwoman Willa Johnson, critical of the hotel's deterioration and uncertain future, asked Wednesday to place the hotel on the city's dilapidated list. If the council approves, it would force the owner to repair the hotel, tear it down or leave it for the city to tear down, if necessary.

Johnson made the request after learning that new roof leaks have been found in the wake of heavy rains the past few weeks.

Ownership of the hotel has changed several times since it closed in 1988. Each new owner has failed to deliver promised renovations and reopenings.

"We've had a boarded-up building in the middle of downtown for years, and it's fast deteriorating," Johnson said Wednesday.

"We need to rehabilitate it as a hotel or put something in its place. And what I'm saying today is I want the owners of the building to do something - to not let it deteriorate any further."

City inspectors must first review Johnson's request. They will survey the property to see whether it is dilapidated under the city's standards.

If the building is considered dilapidated, then inspectors would bring the matter before the city council asking for the authority to request its owners to either repair or demolish the structure.

A vote by the council to have the building demolished would require its owners to carry out the order by a specific date. Failure to carry out the request would result in the city hiring its own contractor to do the work, with the bill being attached to the property's taxes.

Johnson's request surprised city officials, who estimate it would cost more to tear down the old hotel than the city's annual budget for demolition.

They equate the Skirvin's potential demolition costs to that of the old Belle Isle power plant and the old Mercy Hospital building in north downtown.

Johnson's request Wednesday followed last week's announcement by Mike Dillard that equity partner William Curry Myles had lost the exclusive rights to purchase the building from Dillard's Tower 2000 for redevelopment.

Myles, who has been trying to buy out Dillard for months, lost his exclusive rights when he failed to meet a June 30 deadline to get the needed financing for the purchase deal.

Dillard said Wednesday he is sure the Skirvin situation will be resolved.

Read more: http://newsok.com/skirvin-may-be-declared-dilapidated/article/2659661#ixzz1o65j7i70

I have no doubt there were some people who felt the Skirvin wasn't worth saving -- I've heard that said about the First National Center the Colcord and just about everywhere else -- but that is a very, very long way from saying it was almost demolished.

That building was not owned by the city until very late in it's closure and by then the whole point of taking control was to save it. Moreover, there were government grants tied to that property long before the city finally put together a viable ownership/financing deal.

And of the several ownership groups none of them ever once proposed tearing it down.

this was to some extent a ruse - designed to get people off of high center

The city did something similar back in the early 90's to gain control of the property.

Well, sorry to be so vague. I never said it was "almost demolished." What I am saying is that there were very important, influential people behind the scenes who wanted it done. This was not some old-building-hater spouting off in a web forum, is was decision-makers lobbying to demolish. The long-term threat to the building was very real.

The whole reason we're discussing this in this thread is that the Skirvin is being held up as a cautionary tale: "Even the beautiful Skirvin was almost thrown away! That proves that no building in OKC is safe!!"


I consider myself a preservationist yet I can see why many see that cause as backed by a lot of over-reactionaries who are forever parading out the slippery slope argument. And I think that is what is happening to certain extent with Stage Center.

The whole reason we're discussing this in this thread is that the Skirvin is being held up as a cautionary tale: "Even the beautiful Skirvin was almost thrown away! That proves that no building in OKC is safe!!"


I consider myself a preservationist yet I can see why many see that cause as backed by a lot of over-reactionaries who are forever parading out the slippery slope argument. And I think that is what is happening to certain extent with Stage Center.

It's past a "slippery slope" when we've already taken a plunge without parachutes into the canyon. The icons and historical treasures that have avoided this plunge in OKC are few. It's hardly reactionary when the city has a 50-plus year history of doing it to anything and everything, regardless of aesthetics, functionality, civic virtue, or substantive value. We can all thank Blanton or whatever company that was that took down the Belle Isle plant and gave us a ghastly Wal-Mart strip development -- while destroying a watershed.

I hear what you're saying but I think our preservationists aren't reactionary (or loud) enough.

Ljbab is making a point about rational choice. Developers generally work within the laws (except when they know they can get around them) and ordinances, because they know that their competition also has to follow the same rules. The system works only because it supposedly applies to all. In this scenario, and because of rational choice, the laws and ordinances also set the minimum development standards. However the problem with the Outlet Mall as a case study example in real estate economics is that an outlet mall is destination retail; most of its business is coming from a long ways away. Most people have been in agreement that downtown retail will need to achieve destination status in order to be capable of sustaining itself, simply because the rooftops don't exist downtown, and even with more development, that is still too unique of a demographic. Throw out the normal laws of economics that would otherwise apply to a normal strip mall retail center surrounded by typical suburbia.

Spartan, my main point was regarding a statement that because OKC developers had enough money to develop the outlet mall there should be enough money to save the Stage Center which doesn't equate. Surely you're not suggesting that a development like that would have any place in the downtown area. Downtown needs retail but that's not it. That was the thought behind the much maligned Bass Pro Shop.

This developer is national, and I am pretty sure they have no central city outlet malls nor any that are in historic or architecturally significant buildings. The idea that this development somehow proves there is money available for stage center is bizarre.

Pete, while I don't think the Skirvin was "about to be torn down," I do believe it ultimately would have been, had not Kirk Humphreys formed the Skirvin Solutions Committee at great personal political risk. Though it might not seem like in in hindsight, it is the truth. Had he not thoughtfully crafted that committee at such a critical juncture in that building's existence, I believe it WOULD have been demolished by now.

As the building degraded, the "unfortunately, it's beyond saving" or the "it would be too cost-prohibitive to save" or the "it's an eyesore, stifling neighboring developments" argument WOULD have ultimately become too believable and compelling to the average citizen, much as those arguments for demo of Stage Center are today. The building seemed hopeless, would have only gotten worse, and more and more people would have become fatalistic about it, buying the practicality line.

Would there have been a fight? Yes. But without a creative financial soulution there would have ultimately also been a funeral. This is an inevitibility in these types of instances, and buildings far more beautiful and important than the Skirvin have fallen victim to this irresistable march of "progress."

In that sense, I think it is entirely appropriate to consider it instructional in the case of Stage Center.

For the record, there were VERY POWERFUL interests pushing to tear down the Skirvin in the late 1990s. It was Kirk Humphreys who really prevented such a fate from occurring.

I believe wholeheartedly in vilifying the folks who wanted to tear it down, because I am sick and tired of these people who opposed the idea of downtown revitalization, opposed the Thunder, opposed the Skirvin restoration and other incredible historic preservation projects--and then they deny their record on projects that went down as successes and continue their track record of opposing preservation and revitalization of downtown.

I am sorry, but if somebody wanted the Skirvin to be torn down, that should disqualify any involvement in anything ever again. For someone to be so wrong on something that was so successful, to have such an incredible shortcoming of foresight, is just unbelievable in this day and age when the Skirvin has been perhaps THE biggest, and most under-hyped downtown success story to date. Either that, or we should make it so well-known that the issue clouds over them and prevents people from considering their drivel to be a legitimate argument.

So we've got Willa Johnson, who is now wanting citizens to throw down $300+ million for a jail we don't need. Who else do we need to vilify? I wish we were keeping track, and could give report cards on civic leaders each year, like virtually every major national advocacy group.

Willa was playing a political card, trying to force the hand of Roddy Bates and Michael Dillard. She wasn't serious about tearing it down. As for the power players... one the most powerful in the group that wanted it torn down is now dead.

Jim Brewer? (who is not somebody that we need to further vilify IMO, especially posthumously)

EK Gaylord. Lots of editorials in the Oklahoma in 2000/01.

But this issue is much more complex than saying people were "pushing to tear it down". The main issue was spending a ton of city tax dollars without a viable plan. And it's darn hard to argue against that.


Anyway, I'm not going to debate this any more. I would suggest people do their own research on the chronology of events; it's not hard to do through the Oklahoman archives and elsewhere.

I followed all this very closely at the time and have re-read all the articles and stand by my previous statements.

EK Gaylord. Lots of editorials in the Oklahoma in 2000/01.I think you mean E.K.'s son Eddie; E.K. died long before the turn of the century!

Pete, with all respect and appreciation for you, I was writing many of those articles you were reading. Some powerful folks had other ideas with what to do with the Skirvin property and were lobbying behind the scenes to have it torn down. The official record does not always reflect what's occurring behind the scenes. In this case there was more than a passive opposition to preserving the hotel.

There's a reason its "one of a kind". We could replicate that building today on an empty field easily if we wanted to. ...

And the Louvre Pyramid in Paris is just a big glass pyramid. They could replace it tomorrow if it were destroyed so no big loss right?

And the Louvre Pyramid in Paris is just a big glass pyramid. They could replace it tomorrow if it were destroyed so no big loss right?

Please tell me you're not comparing the Louvre Pyramid to the freaking Stage Center.

Please.

And the Louvre Pyramid in Paris is just a big glass pyramid. They could replace it tomorrow if it were destroyed so no big loss right?

Are you saying it's not? Compared to the original architecture of The Louvre, the pyramid part could be replaced in three months.

http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/The-Louvre.jpg

Let's see...the pyramid is structurally sound and part of a world class facility. So this compares to stage center's issue how?

By the way, the pyramid may seem out of place, but if you go just a couple of blocks Through the gardens to the Place de la Concorde you will find a large Egyptian obelisk which can be seen from the Louvre so there actually is a tie in. Not sure what the Stage Center fits in OKC. Not that I want it to go.

My point, which you guys either missed or just ignored because you don't share the same opinion, is that value is not always a function of cost. The total sum of all the parts of that glass pyramid is probably a lot less than Stage Center and its design simple enough that it could be replicated if someone wanted to. Yet its artistic and cultural value to the city of Paris is priceless. Priceless to the point that I am confident if it ever cracks or suffers structural damage they will painstakingly rework each pane of glass one by one rather than raze the thing and start over, even if that would be cheaper to do.

It may not be the work of IM Pei, but what I am suggesting is that perhaps there is more value in Stage Center than what some of you are assigning to it by just tallying up the sum of its parts.

ThE two are such apples and oranges they can't be compared. The pyramid illuminates and provides access to a much larger structure beneatH. It is as functional as it is unusual. The structure serves the function. With the Stage Center, the function SUFFERS because of the structure. If you've been to each it is very obvious. If all you see of the pyramid is a picture, you can't get a sense of it.

ThE two are such apples and oranges they can't be compared.

Yes. One is a decoration. A grand entrance. The other is a complete functioning building. The pyramid really has no burden of function. I think Stage Center was a great mix of function and form in design, it just didn't hold up. If the Stage Center structure was only a labyrinthine entrance to a much grander facility, it wouldn't need $30 million to fix it because it would not be expected to fulfill the functions that it was actually constructed for.

Overall, I have never been to see performance art and visual art on that scale in a cooler and more appropriate place than Stage Center. It was a great multi-functional art facility that was a work of art itself. Usually stuff on that scale today is housed in unassuming playhouses that very often have little unique features. Stage Center always offered a unique and inviting experience before the house lights ever came down or any art was ever hung.

Sorry, but the Pyramid at the Louvre is part of a totally functional design. If you've been, you know. Creative design can be very functional...the two aren't exclusive. The question on the Stage Center is, can it be totally functional and useful as a building, or is it merely a piece of art and homage to the architect, as well as a landmark for the city? And, if it isn't economically viable as an ongoing entity, exactly what is the public cost one time and ongoing? If re-purposed, who supports it financially?

FWIW, I am in favor of saving the building as I do think it is significant. However, if the $$$ to do so don't flow pretty darn quickly it will be a moot point.

Sorry, but the Pyramid at the Louvre is part of a totally functional design. If you've been, you know.

They could be cubes - all they are is an enterance to a place that already existed. Their only actual function is that they keep rain out. That was the point BDP was making.

Sorry, but the Pyramid at the Louvre is part of a totally functional design. If you've been, you know.

I have not been there, but it seems mostly ornamental. It was a way to spruce up the entrance. I am in no way saying it doesn't have value, it just never had a functional burden to which to conform. It's top priority is aesthetics.


Creative design can be very functional...the two aren't exclusive.

Clearly. As I outlined above, I feel Stage Center was a good execution of both.


The question on the Stage Center is, can it be totally functional and useful as a building, or is it merely a piece of art and homage to the architect, as well as a landmark for the city?

Yes. And when it was functioning, I thought it did all of the above and more.


And, if it isn't economically viable as an ongoing entity, exactly what is the public cost one time and ongoing? If re-purposed, who supports it financially?

That's the problem and, as I have stated before, I get it. The economics do not exist here to get it back on its feet or, more specifically, overcome the maintenance burden which the design inadvertently compounded.


FWIW, I am in favor of saving the building as I do think it is significant. However, if the $$$ to do so don't flow pretty darn quickly it will be a moot point.

Right. However, I don't feel that speaks to the structure's merit of design in the context of function as much as it does the economics of supporting such a design. That's kind of like saying the design of a Ferrari doesn't succeed because it results in a high cost of purchase and maintenance. All it really means is that only a select few can afford to keep one in their garage. And, unfortunately, imo, OKC is not one of those select few.

Their only actual function is that they keep rain out.

What's funny is that if Stage Center's only functional burden was to do just that, then I would unequivocally agree it was a failure. ; )

There's a reason its "one of a kind". We could replicate that building today on an empty field easily if we wanted to. Its a lot harder to replicate buildings like the Skirvin that were built in the early 1900's. That kind of hand craftsmanship doesn't exist anymore.

This is a very bad argument. The correct answer is to support both, not pit one style or one taste against one another. Preservation is not a zero-sum game.

I don't think it is necesarry to pit those two things against each other. The Stage center has archetectual significance and its destruction is not something you can take back 10 years down the road.

I don't think it is necesarry to pit those two things against each other. The Stage center has archetectual significance and its destruction is not something you can take back 10 years down the road.

You could re-build Stage Center in 3 weeks using the exact same materials. It isn't like putting up concrete forms and attaching sheet metal is a cost-prohibitive lost art these days.

...its destruction is not something you can take back 10 years down the road...

No joke? Haha

Clearly you either GET IT.. or you DON"T...

Clearly you either GET IT.. or you DON"T...

There's no happy middle? LOL

Clearly you either GET IT.. or you DON"T...

I am just having a hard time figuring out what there is to get.

1) there is nothing special about the location
2) the building materials are not unique
3) the detail (what there is) is easily replicated
4) the time period it was built in is not special
5) the construction technique is not a lost art
6) brutalism itself was intened to be uninspiring - and definately is not in short supply in downtown OKC.

What would prevent Stage Center from being built anywhere else in OKC?

I am just having a hard time figuring out what there is to get.

1) there is nothing special about the location
2) the building materials are not unique
3) the detail (what there is) is easily replicated
4) the time period it was built in is not special
5) the construction technique is not a lost art
6) brutalism itself was intened to be uninspiring - and definately is not in short supply in downtown OKC.

What would prevent Stage Center from being built anywhere else in OKC?

Finding an area that would allow such garbage to be built in their neighborhood !!

Not that I want to save Stage Center - but doing some projection animation on it would be pretty neat and a huge crowd pleaser (plus very easy to do)

gJ_5sDvAlNY

of course, no one does it better than Disney. This video does not even come close do it justice but you get the idea.

AjLZ8fFZO4w