Have you heard something?

Not specifically, I just wanted to remind everyone that the buyer may expect the site to already be cleared. The Community Foundation may even find it worthwhile toward their own gain...

In the Mystery Tower thread, there's a link to an article simply saying there's still a possibly for a new high rise, and to keep an eye on whats happening to to the Stage Center property. So, if anyone want to share of what they've heard? Or maybe update us when you get info that would be awesome.

In the Mystery Tower thread, there's a link to an article simply saying there's still a possibly for a new high rise, and to keep an eye on whats happening to to the Stage Center property. So, if anyone want to share of what they've heard? Or maybe update us when you get info that would be awesome.

I'm betting Steve will do that in the paper when the information is able to be shared. That's just my guess.

Reading the Stage Center Will Probably Be Torn Down

OKCOMG | Reading Stage Center will probably be torn down (http://okcomg.tumblr.com/post/32633036435/reading-stage-center-will-probably-be-torn-down)

While I'm sad to see that Oklahoma City still has penchant for demolition, I hope this loss leads to something great on that site.

I'm still not upset with seeing the Stage Center go. I've never really liked the building. But i do want it to be replaced with something that looks amazing and helps OKC become more urbanized. I want first floor retail, and a great design that really makes our City look even better than it does. I really hope that we don't tear it down just to replace with another eyesore. I'm all preserving buildings that add aesthetically pleasing character to our city (such as the work being done to Braniff, the restoration of the Skirvin, the hopefully soon to be given to new owners and then restored FNC [could be my favorite building in okc if restored right]) But i've never been one who is just in favor of restoring a building just because it is old or unique, I think it takes more than just those to things to really be worth saving.

And before you ask me what those other things are, i really don't know... i just know that there are many building in OKC that i want to restore and keep and they are absolutely beautiful (Rock Island Plow is one of them) and then there are others that just don't appeal to me, and i really don't care for, and therefore don't mind seeing them demo'd if the result is something that is better, in my opinion (ie stage center)

Does anyone else think it would be a great place for 10-12 floor condo or apartment? With the first floor having a cafe, resturaunt, shopping and mixed use. Because I think that would a great place, right next to the myriad gardens, the core of downtown, and fairly close to the art district.

If it is only 10 to 12 floors it will be a huge let down and a missed opportunity. I am expecting something in the 25 to 40 story range. The lot is also big enough that multiple residential/hotel towers could be build on it.

Who owns the propery derictly south of the Stage Center? Right in front of Reno.

I am holding out hope for a project similar to the Ft Worth Omni/Condo high rise. I think OKC could support a project of this scope by the time all the design, permitting, and construction would be complete.

2699

While I'm sad to see that Oklahoma City still has penchant for demolition, I hope this loss leads to something great on that site.

Oklahoma City isn't pro-demolition - this is an issue of economics. The building requires millions in structural, mechanical and cosmetic improvements to make it functional again, and then a group that can operate it profitably. Almost no-one wants it torn down, but absolutely no-one stepped up with the funds necessary to save it.

It's highest and best use? Probably a high-rise, mixed use building with perhaps the best views in Oklahoma City.

I wouldn't like "just another beautiful tower". Something with mixed use on the bottom and lots of "modern art-deco" is what I think would be great for this city.

Oklahoma City isn't pro-demolition - this is an issue of economics. The building requires millions in structural, mechanical and cosmetic improvements to make it functional again, and then a group that can operate it profitably. Almost no-one wants it torn down, but absolutely no-one stepped up with the funds necessary to save it.

It's highest and best use? Probably a high-rise, mixed use building with perhaps the best views in Oklahoma City.

Eh, there are plenty of other completely barren lots that could be used while this one continued to try and work itself out over a little longer time frame, thus supporting that OKC still has a real love of demolition, but I get what you're saying.

Eh, there are plenty of other completely barren lots that could be used while this one continued to try and work itself out over a little longer time frame, thus supporting that OKC still has a real love of demolition, but I get what you're saying.

an empty lot will look better than stage center does right now

an empty lot will look better than stage center does right now

haha, I don't really disagree with this.

an empty lot will look better than stage center does right now

Disagree. It's one of the few buildings I enjoy looking at downtown. It literally makes me smile when I see it. I will be one of the mourners if this building is torn down, and unless something spectacular goes in its place, I think it may be another regret about the list character of our "old downtown". Just my opinion, of course.

Let's face it, Stage Center has been little more than a piece of art since it was built. Never has been able to stay open for very long.

Love or hate it, it's *interesting* and we need more of that in OKC.


That said, as long as we get a slick project for that site, I'll be happy. But I hate the idea of scraping it until we have a really cool, well-funded project in hand.

Oklahoma City isn't pro-demolition - this is an issue of economics. The building requires millions in structural, mechanical and cosmetic improvements to make it functional again, and then a group that can operate it profitably. Almost no-one wants it torn down, but absolutely no-one stepped up with the funds necessary to save it.

It's highest and best use? Probably a high-rise, mixed use building with perhaps the best views in Oklahoma City.

Yeah, no one who would actually find the Stage Center useful for their needs could actually afford to repair it.

I say remove pieces of it and place in somewhere ornamently in the new C2S park.... it would make a cool center piece of the past.

I say remove pieces of it and place in somewhere ornamently in the new C2S park.... it would make a cool center piece of the past.

No need to use actual pieces of the Stage Center. A few haphazardly stacked shipping containers with ducts jutting out would be enough to resurrect the memory.

I am holding out hope for a project similar to the Ft Worth Omni/Condo high rise. I think OKC could support a project of this scope by the time all the design, permitting, and construction would be complete.

2699

You and me both, Captain!

I don't understand the desire to salvage the building. It's worthless, and needs to be torn down.

The architecture is what matters. The architecture can be recreated elsewhere in the city, and I feel like we should give serious consideration to just that, or maybe some sort of new theater that pays homage to Mummers. It seems like it would be just as cheap to rebuild the thing as it would be to try and restore it and refurbish it to the point that would make it a viable building.

And as much as I like having the piece in OKC, and I hope we see it come back, that particular lot in the CBD is pretty danged important to expanding the core of downtown to the southwest. I'm with JTF on us shooting for a 20+ story building...preferably something in the 400 - 600 ft. range.

So, is actually being torn down? I know people are saying it will be but, is it for sure?

So, is actually being torn down? I know people are saying it will be but, is it for sure?

It's not official, no.

OKC Council expected to approve Stage Center recommendation for National Register | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2012/10/08/okc-council-expected-to-approve-stage-center-recommendation-for-national-register-real-estate/)

Huh?

That is a surprise

See Pete's post on the implications of being on the National Register.


Getting a building on the national historic register does nothing to protect if from demolition.

It does create the opportunity for tax credits if it is renovated.

So, the foundation may be seeking this to help it in marketing the property.

I think its also a saving face move by the city council. "We tried guys, but no one could afford to save the Stage Center even with the tax incentives"

No matter what is built on this site (office tower, residential tower, hotel, etc), I think the "Stage Center" name should be preserved, with maybe a small model of Stage Center (or a Stage Center inspired piece of new art) featured as the site's public art center piece.

No matter what is built on this site (office tower, residential tower, hotel, etc), I think the "Stage Center" name should be preserved, with maybe a small model of Stage Center (or a Stage Center inspired piece of new art) featured as the site's public art center piece.

Very good idea! Definitely on board with that.

No matter what is built on this site (office tower, residential tower, hotel, etc), I think the "Stage Center" name should be preserved, with maybe a small model of Stage Center (or a Stage Center inspired piece of new art) featured as the site's public art center piece.

*Like*

And coupled with the idea to rebuild it elsewhere, you could vaguely attach this site with wherever else in the city a rebuilt stage center exists. I think architectural reprisal throughout the city needs more emphasis. One of the things I've always liked about Dallas is that when you start getting into the core, there are several places throughout that highlight certain elements of some of the landmarks in the skyline (particularly the Comerica crown and the Trammell/Crow crown)

I guess the part of the "preserve the Stage Center" argument that escapes me is that there is absolutely nothing distinctive about blocks of concrete connected by tubes and pipes. If blocks of concrete constitute art, then the football stadium in Norman should be heralded as a world masterpiece - it's nothing BUT a steel and concrete skeleton with a brick facade.

I don't mean to incite a riot on this issue, realize there are differing opinions, but there's absolutely nothing preventing virtually the exact same building being reproduced nearly anywhere on any lot given a philanthropist with connections to a concrete company and the $$ resources willing to make it happen. I compare/contrast this with the kind of detail work and masonry that went into the classic buildings of downtown OKC that were torn down at the behest of I.M. Pei and realize that kind of individual craftsmanship truly can't be reproduced - it can only be emulated - and that loss is truly sad. But the loss of a concrete and metal structure just doesn't capture the imagination as a rationale for cloistering a highly valuable and otherwise desirable piece of land that could be brought to much broader and vital use.

Just my opinion.

Disagree. It's one of the few buildings I enjoy looking at downtown. It literally makes me smile when I see it. I will be one of the mourners if this building is torn down, and unless something spectacular goes in its place, I think it may be another regret about the list character of our "old downtown". Just my opinion, of course.

I agree with this. But I will always avoid and consider "scorched earth" all the offensive replacements and their tenants; i.e. Sandridge. Just my opinion.

No matter what is built on this site (office tower, residential tower, hotel, etc), I think the "Stage Center" name should be preserved, with maybe a small model of Stage Center (or a Stage Center inspired piece of new art) featured as the site's public art center piece.

Couldn't tell you why, but I like this idea.


I guess the part of the "preserve the Stage Center" argument that escapes me is that there is absolutely nothing distinctive about blocks of concrete connected by tubes and pipes. If blocks of concrete constitute art, then the football stadium in Norman should be heralded as a world masterpiece - it's nothing BUT a steel and concrete skeleton with a brick facade.

I don't mean to incite a riot on this issue, realize there are differing opinions, but there's absolutely nothing preventing virtually the exact same building being reproduced nearly anywhere on any lot given a philanthropist with connections to a concrete company and the $$ resources willing to make it happen. I compare/contrast this with the kind of detail work and masonry that went into the classic buildings of downtown OKC that were torn down at the behest of I.M. Pei and realize that kind of individual craftsmanship truly can't be reproduced - it can only be emulated - and that loss is truly sad. But the loss of a concrete and metal structure just doesn't capture the imagination as a rationale for cloistering a highly valuable and otherwise desirable piece of land that could be brought to much broader and vital use.

Just my opinion.

Don't say something is just your opinion. It cheapens your statements and only panders to people who ought to grow thicker skin. :)

Stage Center is more than steel and concrete. It is clearly a very carefully considered and expressive piece of architecture. However, you're right. There is nothing sacred about it and it could be very easily reproduced elsewhere. So considering that, it would be a shame for it to continue to occupy land that could be instrumental in other ways in furthering the CBD's development. I really love the appreciation you have for the craftsmanship lost from the earlier days of the city. We should be building places that evoke that feeling of appreciation for the details. Stage Center is only good for looking from the curb and only ever will be, even if it opens again. It's not a space to be used. It, like many pieces of art, is an oddity and a curiosity.

Tear it down. Rebuild it somewhere it can be appreciated by all by not being in the way of better things to come.

Rebuilding a demolished historic structure is against every tenet of historic preservation. It recreates a false history. A building is either historic or it's not historic. Did you know that in Texas there is a replica of the Alamo compound as it appeared in 1836, built for a John Wayne movie? Is it historic or architecturally important in any way? Of course not, except for its history as a former John Wayne movie set. A Stage Center replica wouldn't even enjoy that level of novelty factor. If it's torn down, it will be lost to the city forever. That's the way it should be. It's an important decision, and "oh, well, let's just rebuild it someplace else if it's so important" shouldn't make the decision easier.

Besides, Stage Center has struggled its entire life to be financially feasible. Spending millions of dollars to build an EXACT REPLICA of an insolvent building makes sense? That is only being suggested as a salve to the conscience of demolition advocates who on some level know it is an important structure.

There are only two proper outcomes for Stage Center:


Restoration and a high level of community commitment to making it financially secure for the long term
or
Demolition ONLY with FIRM plans to IMMEDIATELY replace it with a STRUCTURE of higher and better use

Only a bunch of Philistines would demolish an acknowledged architectural treasure only to replace it with a parking lot or empty grass and the HOPE that another undetermined building will replace it one day.

Then call me a Philistine, Urbanized. Sorry, I'm just not part of the enlightened cognoscenti that genuflects when I pass that place. I'd much rather have a kid's park there.

You don't have to apologize. You're in the majority. The culture in OKC for six decades has been to tear down buildings and hope a new one shows up there someday. Unfortunately, that's why we have a downtown pockmarked with empty lots, little urban fabric or intact history, and ONE building that I can think of (Devon) built since the 1980s on the site of a spec demolition.

Again, if you read my post, I left room for the idea of demolishing S.C., but only if immediately replaced by a building of higher and better use. If we had adhered to that standard going back to the urban renewal days instead of "tear down first, ask questions later," our downtown would have never died in the first place.

They moved the London Bridge didn't they ?

Not that I would support the complete movement of SC, but maybe parts could be moved to display in a park somewhere.

Also, the original first settlement Dallas log cabin was dismanteled and moved from the Trinity River to downtown Dallas. Not in the same league as the SC, but historical structures are moved.

For that matter, sometime after 1500, the Pope had the huge columns moved to the Vatican from Circus Maximus, which was more of a recycling issue to save money.

If blocks of concrete constitute art, then the football stadium in Norman should be heralded as a world masterpiece - it's nothing BUT a steel and concrete skeleton with a brick facade.

Personally, I think Stage Center is the opposite of the football stadium's design: the inner experience is better than the outer. There's obviously nothing that anyone could probably point out that would make you appreciate its outward appearance, but, to me, the strength of the building is its interior layout. It was a very cool multi-use art and theater facility unlike any I had ever been in. Every time I would go into it for an art showing or performance, I was always felt "wow, I completely forgot how cool this is". It had a really nice flow to it that just begged to be explored. I can't think of any other theater complex or even museum, really, that has the same feel as Stage Center had. The children's museum idea was actually brilliant, imo. It's perfect for that. But obviously not economical given the shortcomings of the building's infrastructure.

No matter how one feels about it as architecture, Oklahoma City is losing something that provided a unique experience not readily found in many markets, probably in favor of something that is found in most markets, but not common for OKC.

Rebuilding a demolished historic structure is against every tenet of historic preservation. It recreates a false history. A building is either historic or it's not historic. Did you know that in Texas there is a replica of the Alamo compound as it appeared in 1836, built for a John Wayne movie? Is it historic or architecturally important in any way? Of course not, except for its history as a former John Wayne movie set. A Stage Center replica wouldn't even enjoy that level of novelty factor. If it's torn down, it will be lost to the city forever. That's the way it should be. It's an important decision, and "oh, well, let's just rebuild it someplace else if it's so important" shouldn't make the decision easier.

Besides, Stage Center has struggled its entire life to be financially feasible. Spending millions of dollars to build an EXACT REPLICA of an insolvent building makes sense? That is only being suggested as a salve to the conscience of demolition advocates who on some level know it is an important structure.

There are only two proper outcomes for Stage Center:


Restoration and a high level of community commitment to making it financially secure for the long term
or
Demolition ONLY with FIRM plans to IMMEDIATELY replace it with a STRUCTURE of higher and better use

Only a bunch of Philistines would demolish an acknowledged architectural treasure only to replace it with a parking lot or empty grass and the HOPE that another undetermined building will replace it one day.

Here's why I disagree with your assessment of rebuilding:

1. Buildings =/= Architecture and Architecture =/= Buildings
2. This building is only significant architecturally.
3. The building has no real historical value in as much as the actual theaters never gained notoriety.
4. The significance of the architecture has nothing to do with *where* it was built

Also, I think it goes without saying in rebuilding the structure, you make the necessary changes that properly seal the insides from the elements. I don't think that would require an overhaul of the architecture, just better engineering/construction.

Personally, I think Stage Center is the opposite of the football stadium's design: the inner experience is better than the outer. There's obviously nothing that anyone could probably point out that would make you appreciate its outward appearance, but, to me, the strength of the building is its interior layout. It was a very cool multi-use art and theater facility unlike any I had ever been in. Every time I would go into it for an art showing or performance, I was always felt "wow, I completely forgot how cool this is". It had a really nice flow to it that just begged to be explored. I can't think of any other theater complex or even museum, really, that has the same feel as Stage Center had. The children's museum idea was actually brilliant, imo. It's perfect for that. But obviously not economical given the shortcomings of the building's infrastructure.

No matter how one feels about it as architecture, Oklahoma City is losing something that provided a unique experience not readily found in many markets, probably in favor of something that is found in most markets, but not common for OKC.

Exactly! And to Urbanized point: when you have a good plan - not something with short-term common use, then it would be a consideration to remove this great structure. History is full of architecture being over-looked by a generation and being allowed to decay only to be saved by another. Which leads to another point, exactly why does this building have to appeal to everyone in order for it to be considered worth saving? I must admit I am lucky in that I do admire a great variety of architecture if done well in its own style. I realize that like art, not everyone is going to appreciate or even understand the great variety of styles. I must admit, there is art in museums which I have a difficult time appreciating, but I would never consider telling others what to like. There is nothing more dreadful or depressing than seeing pictures of "utopian" cities rendered in someones idealistic style - monotonously . The point is "so what if you don't like it, why can't we like it and want to save it"? Yes, this building will - or would have been hard to save. But, if there is enough interest to do so and people willing to work towards that, what is the point of being against it? Land in OKC, even downtown and this specific location, is NOT at a premium, and will not be so for some time to come.

But for a complete inability to outwit a random number generator on a bigger than anyone really needs prize night, the structure would already be restored and available for events.
I sorta feel like the various money interests behind wanting it gone ought to send me holiday hams as simple thanks for my less than stellar picks.

I just don't get how some people think SC is art. I majored in graphic art/design..and have had my fair share of art history. I understand that a lot of people consider it an architectural gem but no it needs to go bye bye.

Personally, I think Stage Center is the opposite of the football stadium's design: the inner experience is better than the outer. There's obviously nothing that anyone could probably point out that would make you appreciate its outward appearance, but, to me, the strength of the building is its interior layout. It was a very cool multi-use art and theater facility unlike any I had ever been in. Every time I would go into it for an art showing or performance, I was always felt "wow, I completely forgot how cool this is". It had a really nice flow to it that just begged to be explored. I can't think of any other theater complex or even museum, really, that has the same feel as Stage Center had. The children's museum idea was actually brilliant, imo. It's perfect for that. But obviously not economical given the shortcomings of the building's infrastructure.

No matter how one feels about it as architecture, Oklahoma City is losing something that provided a unique experience not readily found in many markets, probably in favor of something that is found in most markets, but not common for OKC.
Absolutely agree. If someone has only experienced the building from the outside, I don't blame them for not understanding its value.

I just don't get how some people think SC is art. I majored in graphic art/design..and have had my fair share of art history. I understand that a lot of people consider it an architectural gem but no it needs to go bye bye.
And you would find plenty of people who would tell you Warhol is junk. Or even Picasso for that matter. And no, I'm not comparing SC to a Picasso; only saying there are varying degrees to which art, architecture or music are valued in society, and some people will always dislike good, or even important pieces of each. Taste is totally subjective.

I have no emotional attachment to Stage Center. I remember as a kid, I thought it looked like a giant jungle gym. As a kid I thought it was neat. Anyone remember Venn Diagrams from school? You'd have two circles and they overlap in the middle?

2726

Well the diagram here is "people who want to save Stage Center" and "people with the money to save Stage Center". Unfortunately our two circles don't touch each other at all.

I have no emotional attachment to Stage Center. I remember as a kid, I thought it looked like a giant jungle gym. As a kid I thought it was neat. Anyone remember Venn Diagrams from school? You'd have two circles and they overlap in the middle?

2726

Well the diagram here is "people who want to save Stage Center" and "people with the money to save Stage Center". Unfortunately our two circles don't touch each other at all.

I have no emotional attachment to Stage Center. I remember as a kid, I thought it looked like a giant jungle gym. As a kid I thought it was neat. Anyone remember Venn Diagrams from school? You'd have two circles and they overlap in the middle?

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/urban-development-buildings/2726d1349821924-stage-center-venn-diagram-horror-movies-musicals-serial-killers.jpeg
Well the diagram here is "people who want to save Stage Center" and "people with the money to save Stage Center". Unfortunately our two circles don't touch each other at all.

So thanks for the warning when you meet someone who loves musicals and horror movies.

And you would find plenty of people who would tell you Warhol is junk. Or even Picasso for that matter. And no, I'm not comparing SC to a Picasso; only saying there are varying degrees to which art, architecture or music are valued in society, and some people will always dislike good, or even important pieces of each. Taste is totally subjective.

100% agree!

There is a difference between artistic architecture and art pieces. This would be a very expensive piece of art. The function of art is very different than that expected of architecture. I personally like SC, but I don't consider it art.

Either way Rover, not many of the general public in OKC are architects, therefore, most of us can't stand the sight of it. Secondly, even though the property was used for theater/performing arts, if the city really does need a venue other than what is already in place, then maybe it's time one is built. Ugly, ugly, ugly (I know, I know...my taste which is totally subjective).

All the recent arguments in this thread can be said of almost any structure in our city... Why have the expense of restoring and maintaining historic properties in NW OKC... They're just brick and wood. Knock them down and recreate them. It's far cheaper than the ridiculous costs and heroics that go into preserving everything down to window Payne wood. Why be sentimental about them just because they were built in the 20s. They have horrible plumbing and electrical anyway. So then why do we do it?

All the recent arguments in this thread can be said of almost any structure in our city... Why have the expense of restoring and maintaining historic properties in NW OKC... They're just brick and wood. Knock them down and recreate them. It's far cheaper than the ridiculous costs and heroics that go into preserving everything down to window Payne wood. Why be sentimental about them just because they were built in the 20s. They have horrible plumbing and electrical anyway. So then why do we do it?

We don't do it on all of them. You have to factor in whether a particular property has historic value, what the cost will be of renovating it and restoring it to utility, whether you have enough money to do it properly, etc. Each has to be considered as an individual property. If it is going to cost $100 to bring a stately manor that dates to statehood up to modern code, then yes it's probably worth saving. On the other end of the spectrum, if it's going to cost 92 million dollars to renovate a 1982 TG&Y, it's probably not worth it. Most properties fall somewhere between the two extremes.

Please understand, there is not an "I Hate Stage Center" committee that is actively working to destroy it. Actually there is, but it's called Nature. The thing is falling apart and nobody has been willing to put up any cash to save it. Everybody just says "Oh lord, won't some kindly billionaire just come along and save this wonderful place!" and they wring their hands.

Oklahoma City Council delays Stage Center historic places recommendation | NewsOK.com (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-council-delays-stage-center-historic-places-recommendation/article/3717400)

Why be sentimental about them just because they were built in the 20s.

This is a straw argument. Historic significance is not based entirely on age and there is a huge economic benefit to preservation. Bricktown, Paseo, Midtown... none of these districts would exist as they are today if everything was torn down based on the merits of their plumbing and electrical infrastructure. There is a reason that homes in Crown Heights, Heritage Hills, Mesta Park, and Edgemere park have some of the best appreciation rates in the state. And whether you have any interest in the history of our community, historic districts do in fact motivate tourist dollars. People just don't really go out of their way to visit areas dominated by cookie cutter strip malls and houses, but they will spend money to visit historic sites and districts. Think about it: there are a lot more points of interest worth marketing to visitors and potential residents housed in and around structures older than 40 years than there are ones built in the recent past. Even if the concept of connecting to a community's past through the remaining works of previous generations is lost on a lot of people, there's no doubt that people as a whole seem to find preserved districts and structures more interesting to visit and explore and this is often reflected in the premium dollars they attract. Honestly, it wasn't really until Oklahoma City got serious about renovating and occupying its historic structures, beginning with bricktown, that people began to take the city seriously. That could just be a coincidence, but it is the preserved and rejuvenated districts that are most often pointed to as evidence of Oklahoma City's revitalization.

This is a straw argument. Historic significance is not based entirely on age and there is a huge economic benefit to preservation. Bricktown, Paseo, Midtown... none of these districts would exist as they are today if everything was torn down based on the merits of their plumbing and electrical infrastructure. There is a reason that homes in Crown Heights, Heritage Hills, Mesta Park, and Edgemere park have some of the best appreciation rates in the state. And whether you have any interest in the history of our community, historic districts do in fact motivate tourist dollars. People just don't really go out of their way to visit areas dominated by cookie cutter strip malls and houses, but they will spend money to visit historic sites and districts. Think about it: there are a lot more points of interest worth marketing to visitors and potential residents housed in and around structures older than 40 years than there are ones built in the recent past. Even if the concept of connecting to a community's past through the remaining works of previous generations is lost on a lot of people, there's no doubt that people as a whole seem to find preserved districts and structures more interesting to visit and explore and this is often reflected in the premium dollars they attract. Honestly, it wasn't really until Oklahoma City got serious about renovating and occupying its historic structures, beginning with bricktown, that people began to take the city seriously. That could just be a coincidence, but it is the preserved and rejuvenated districts that are most often pointed to as evidence of Oklahoma City's revitalization.

He was being a smartass. He's on your side.

He was being a smartass. He's on your side.

Doh! The internet foils me again.

We need a smartass font.

Really, though, I don't have a side except Oklahoma City's side. If renovations and preservation efforts hadn't ever made a real economic impact for the city and the only argument was sentimental, then there wouldn't be much to talk about it and old buildings would just be a matter of charity. The reality though is that, when done right, such efforts do generate real positive returns. The positive impact on the living experience and creation of sentimental attachment from the community is just a bonus, imo.

I have no problem engaging a smartass if it helps show the real benefits of having an interesting place to live. : )

We need a smartass font.



This!

Doh! The internet foils me again.

We need a smartass font.

Really, though, I don't have a side except Oklahoma City's side. If renovations and preservation efforts hadn't ever made a real economic impact for the city and the only argument was sentimental, then there wouldn't be much to talk about it and old buildings would just be a matter of charity. The reality though is that, when done right, such efforts do generate real positive returns. The positive impact on the living experience and creation of sentimental attachment from the community is just a bonus, imo.

I have no problem engaging a smartass if it helps show the real benefits of having an interesting place to live. : )

Well, I think that both economic and "sentimental," as you put it, benefits are important parts of what we're doing. People are sentimental. People love new and modern things, but they love familiar things even more. There is real economic incentive at the city scale to support rehabilitation of older structures. They contribute hugely to what people call a "sense of place," and few people want to live, work, or play in Oklahoma City without that. Rather than being a bonus, the positive impact on the living experience in our city will in turn spur further development and economic strength as more people desire to invest their lives and businesses in Oklahoma City.

Well, I think that both economic and "sentimental," as you put it, benefits are important parts of what we're doing. People are sentimental. People love new and modern things, but they love familiar things even more. There is real economic incentive at the city scale to support rehabilitation of older structures. They contribute hugely to what people call a "sense of place," and few people want to live, work, or play in Oklahoma City without that. Rather than being a bonus, the positive impact on the living experience in our city will in turn spur further development and economic strength as more people desire to invest their lives and businesses in Oklahoma City.

True. They do go hand in hand.

Hopefully, whatever replaces stage center will have significant economical beneficial to the area as a whole, but also have a community element that one day would be worth saving from the next generation's dismissal of our history.

Well, I think that both economic and "sentimental," as you put it, benefits are important parts of what we're doing. People are sentimental. People love new and modern things, but they love familiar things even more. There is real economic incentive at the city scale to support rehabilitation of older structures. They contribute hugely to what people call a "sense of place," and few people want to live, work, or play in Oklahoma City without that. Rather than being a bonus, the positive impact on the living experience in our city will in turn spur further development and economic strength as more people desire to invest their lives and businesses in Oklahoma City.

I think one thing emerging from this debate/discussion is a general agreement that preservation of significant older structures is a worthwhile endeavor, but that sense of significance engendered by this one building is too distant from what one might call the "critical mass" necessary to catalyze the resources necessary to make it happen. You have a really broad spectrum of feelings - abject indifference to preserve at all costs, it seems, and while I have made no bones about my preferences that something better should leverage the space, it would be my hope that such an opinion for this one building doesn't carry with it some implicit indictment against the worthwhile broader objective in the spirit of preserving aspects of our history.

I see some comments here that tend to suggest a willingness to toss the Stage Center is in the vein of the wholesale obliteration of downtown back in the late 60's/early 70's, and I just can't agree with that. I think there are plenty of folks who appreciate the notion of historic preservation, but also realize the practical realities (and, also, some aesthetic preferences) that have brought the Stage Center to its current state...

I see some comments here that tend to suggest a willingness to toss the Stage Center is in the vein of the wholesale obliteration of downtown back in the late 60's/early 70's, and I just can't agree with that. I think there are plenty of folks who appreciate the notion of historic preservation, but also realize the practical realities (and, also, some aesthetic preferences) that have brought the Stage Center to its current state...

I fully agree. I would prefer the Stage Center be removed if it meant something better goes there, but I'm certainly not an advocate of any recreation of the wholesale demolition that destroyed our urban fabric in the first place. Very well said, SoonerDave.