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 completely agree. I count myself a preservationist, and at times it's tempting to allow the fear of replacing a building that we may bemoan the loss of in twenty to fifty years to lead to an imbalanced approach. Stage Center is expensive, occupies the wrong land for its purpose and construction, and the primary thing it has in its favor – a unique aesthetic – is controversial and disliked by many (I would guess most). I wouldn't complain if someone came along with the resources and will to renovate it and the vision to use it for a beneficial purpose. But I would just as soon approve of someone replacing it with a structure of higher and better use.

Does Stage Center being closed shut off some theater avenue that isn't being met by some other entity in OKC? Asked another way, did Stage Center's function become lost, as well?

Best I can tell, the Stage Center design was never really economically viable. It's a theater that due to its unusual design, requires a lot of maintenance, in a city without particularly strong support for theaters. Over the years neglect and a few weather-related problems resulted in millions of dollars of damages. So what we're looking at now is spending like $30 million to turn this thing back into a functional, architecturally significant, maintenance hog. And no theater grorp or art group has that extra money just sitting around. And even if they did, it would probably require public support to keep the thing operational. And most people think it's ugly.

I don't like to tear things down just to tear them down, but if someone is going to come in and build something new on this site, I'll support them. Like I said earlier, when I was a kid I thought this looked like a giant jungle gym, and thought it was cool. I remember running up and down the ramps and in and out of the building back in the late 80s when we'd take class trips to the art festival. I didn't know what it was, but imagined it was some cool spaceship thing. I like the idea of turning it into some type of children's museum, but I don't think the money is there.

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...

Definitely true. Unfortunately, there are also plenty who seem to harbor a universal contempt for organized preservation efforts, despite the numerous recent examples of how it can benefit the city.

We need a smartass font.

Indeed!

I agree with the idea of the children's museum and I think it would be a popular attraction that would draw more families downtown. Unfortunately, museums don't make much of or if anything in the way of profits, and thus that keeps the private sector from getting involved. My thought for a while is that when the inevitable fourth MAPS program comes up down the road, that a conversion of the Stage Center into a children's museum be one of the projects. That would of course mean that the property sit idle for another decade, but then again the Skirvin Hotel sat idle for almost 2 decades and looked what happened with it.

However, I'm a realist and I realize that there is a good chance that it gets razed. But if no developer of the site steps forward in the next few years, why not try another approach.

Its highly unlikely that it will sit idle for several years. It sits on prime real estate.

I agree with the idea of the children's museum and I think it would be a popular attraction that would draw more families downtown. Unfortunately, museums don't make much of or if anything in the way of profits, and thus that keeps the private sector from getting involved. My thought for a while is that when the inevitable fourth MAPS program comes up down the road, that a conversion of the Stage Center into a children's museum be one of the projects. That would of course mean that the property sit idle for another decade, but then again the Skirvin Hotel sat idle for almost 2 decades and looked what happened with it.

However, I'm a realist and I realize that there is a good chance that it gets razed. But if no developer of the site steps forward in the next few years, why not try another approach.

A group just tried to establish it as a childrens museum and it all fell through just a few months ago. No money.

Best I can tell, the Stage Center design was never really economically viable. It's a theater that due to its unusual design, requires a lot of maintenance, in a city without particularly strong support for theaters. Over the years neglect and a few weather-related problems resulted in millions of dollars of damages. So what we're looking at now is spending like $30 million to turn this thing back into a functional, architecturally significant, maintenance hog. And no theater grorp or art group has that extra money just sitting around. And even if they did, it would probably require public support to keep the thing operational. And most people think it's ugly.

I don't like to tear things down just to tear them down, but if someone is going to come in and build something new on this site, I'll support them. Like I said earlier, when I was a kid I thought this looked like a giant jungle gym, and thought it was cool. I remember running up and down the ramps and in and out of the building back in the late 80s when we'd take class trips to the art festival. I didn't know what it was, but imagined it was some cool spaceship thing. I like the idea of turning it into some type of children's museum, but I don't think the money is there.

I think that's a pretty fair analysis, hoya. I remember when the Stage Center was originally built, under the name of the "Mummers Theater," and it was a bit on the quirky side even then. I do recall quite a bit of discussion even back then that while it was an interesting artistic venue, there were great considerations about its practical utility outside of a very narrow range of performance options. Remembered reading/hearing right after it opened "yeah, its kinda neat inside, but you can't do this kind of thing, or that kind of event because the stage is too small, configuration isn't right, facility isn't designed for it, can't change it, etc. etc." And I think that lack of flexibility ultimately proved to be its undoing.

I wasn't being a smartass, I was asking a legitimate question. I even started my post out with a sentence that I thought made it very clear what I was getting at, posing a question rather than simply being sarcastic. I appreciate the one or two of you who took the time to think about and answer the question, even if I might have arrived at a different conclusion than you.

In so many cases, the questions and fate about to befall Stage Center are the same questions and the same fate that so many other buildings in OKC have come to see. It's ugly... it would be too expensive to repair... it's setting on prime real estate... it's not functional by modern standards for the purpose it was originally intended. These were not words said about Stage Center, but rather countless other buildings lost to time in core downtown OKC... one of them a hotel in need of repairs, on prime real estate, that no one believed would redevelop because no one makes them with so few rooms anymore. In another case, with so many. In another case, because people of the time viewed the Gothic accents as ugly and out of place and so there was no feeling of sentiment attached to the building.

I just can't help but shake the feeling we are going to tear this building down, and then in about 10 years the mid-century modern restoration movement currently sweeping the country is going to shift to post-brutalism and adhocism (which by the way is what this structure is, not brutalism, as far as my non-architect eye can tell) as the younger folks in our society come into their own, and we'll be lamenting the loss of this building... just like how a generation ago many of those in this forum probably couldn't understand why their elder generations were allowing themselves to be parted of their history... for all the very same reasons and arguments.

There's no doubt that from an architectural standpoint the work is controversial. I guess from my thinking I have to wonder... when has a boring, safe, risk-adverse piece of art ever been deemed a masterpiece? Of the masterpieces that exist in our world today, how many of them weren't recognized as such until generations after the artist and those who ridiculed him were long since dead? At the risk of sounding like a smartass again, I will simply spell it out: 1. None, and 2. Nearly all of them.

I wasn't being a smartass, I was asking a legitimate question. I even started my post out with a sentence that I thought made it very clear what I was getting at, posing a question rather than simply being sarcastic. I appreciate the one or two of you who took the time to think about and answer the question, even if I might have arrived at a different conclusion than you.

In so many cases, the questions and fate about to befall Stage Center are the same questions and the same fate that so many other buildings in OKC have come to see. It's ugly... it would be too expensive to repair... it's setting on prime real estate... it's not functional by modern standards for the purpose it was originally intended. These were not words said about Stage Center, but rather countless other buildings lost to time in core downtown OKC... one of them a hotel in need of repairs, on prime real estate, that no one believed would redevelop because no one makes them with so few rooms anymore. In another case, with so many. In another case, because people of the time viewed the Gothic accents as ugly and out of place and so there was no feeling of sentiment attached to the building.

I just can't help but shake the feeling we are going to tear this building down, and then in about 10 years the mid-century modern restoration movement currently sweeping the country is going to shift to post-brutalism and adhocism (which by the way is what this structure is, not brutalism, as far as my non-architect eye can tell) as the younger folks in our society come into their own, and we'll be lamenting the loss of this building... just like how a generation ago many of those in this forum probably couldn't understand why their elder generations were allowing themselves to be parted of their history... for all the very same reasons and arguments.

There's no doubt that from an architectural standpoint the work is controversial. I guess from my thinking I have to wonder... when has a boring, safe, risk-adverse piece of art ever been deemed a masterpiece? Of the masterpieces that exist in our world today, how many of them weren't recognized as such until generations after the artist and those who ridiculed him were long since dead? At the risk of sounding like a smartass again, I will simply spell it out: 1. None, and 2. Nearly all of them.

Thank you. I agree. I think some generation - the next perhaps - will lament the destruction of Stage Center. My daughter, in fact, when she was visiting and we were touring downtown to see what had happened since she was last here - said about Stage Center, "That's the most interesting building in Oklahoma City." I told her we thought it was going to be torn down, and she said that would be a shame because, "There's very little in downtown Oklahoma City that is different from any other city of similar size. That building sets Oklahoma City apart. Every city should have something unique, whether it's practical or not"

In so many cases, the questions and fate about to befall Stage Center are the same questions and the same fate that so many other buildings in OKC have come to see. It's ugly... it would be too expensive to repair... it's setting on prime real estate... it's not functional by modern standards for the purpose it was originally intended. These were not words said about Stage Center, but rather countless other buildings lost to time in core downtown OKC... one of them a hotel in need of repairs, on prime real estate, that no one believed would redevelop because no one makes them with so few rooms anymore. In another case, with so many. In another case, because people of the time viewed the Gothic accents as ugly and out of place and so there was no feeling of sentiment attached to the building.



Those buildings actually had useful business purposes that paid the bills to renovate them.

Unless the Stage Center becomes Larry Nichols home or another rich guy's home its going to be bought out and demolished.

Its highly unlikely that it will sit idle for several years. It sits on prime real estate.

I.M. Pei said that, too.

I have accepted the loss of Stage Center and am ready for change. I cant wait to see what proposals come in. However, I have a nagging gut feeling that we are going to regret doing this...

Are we really willing to demolish ANY block just for a new skyscraper? (shudders)

There's a breached sanctity of landmark-occupied sites, whether or not the landmark is too progressive for one's liking. Preservation in OKC, something we used to pride ourselves on a few years ago, is very weak right now. Pre-SR it used to be quite the rallying cry.

One has to wonder if the older buildings that Sandridge demolished were preserved, there would be less energy and passion toward saving the 1960's Stage Center.

The Stage Center isn't going to be saved though.

Since demolition appears inevitable, I hope for something like this 2748 to occupy the Stage Center site. Omni Ft Worth hotel/residential combination.

when has a boring, safe, risk-adverse piece of art ever been deemed a masterpiece?

Mona Lisa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa)

Of the masterpieces that exist in our world today, how many of them weren't recognized as such until generations after the artist and those who ridiculed him were long since dead?

Much fewer than you seem to be under the impression were. Although there is a certain sensation and romanticism about artists who created masterpieces that were not recognized as such in their lifetime (e.g. Van Gogh), they are certainly the exception and not the rule.

Regardless, Stage Center is not a masterpiece. It isn't anything more than interesting architecture and a tired, worn, practically useless building.

Thank you. I agree. I think some generation - the next perhaps - will lament the destruction of Stage Center. My daughter, in fact, when she was visiting and we were touring downtown to see what had happened since she was last here - said about Stage Center, "That's the most interesting building in Oklahoma City." I told her we thought it was going to be torn down, and she said that would be a shame because, "There's very little in downtown Oklahoma City that is different from any other city of similar size. That building sets Oklahoma City apart. Every city should have something unique, whether it's practical or not"

Let's find something else to set us apart. Stage Center is a pretty poor way to do it.

Let's find something else to set us apart. Stage Center is a pretty poor way to do it.

I agree.

I never knew there were so many people in our community who loathed distinctive architecture. That's a shame. I hope none of you guys ever go to Paris (or anywhere in Europe), you'll absolutely hate it.


Since demolition appears inevitable, I hope for something like this 2748 to occupy the Stage Center site. Omni Ft Worth hotel/residential combination.

This will be a major fail if we occupy the whole damn site with ONE huge building like the Omni.

Are we really willing to demolish ANY block just for a new skyscraper? (shudders)

Of course not. Why does everyone keep coming back to this straw-man argument? People here have time and time again listed all of the very good reasons Stage Center is uniquely qualified to be torn down in the event that someone would prefer to construct something more attractive (or at least, less controversial) and practical. There is no reasonable approach to preserving every structure downtown and it would destroy our chances of developing the kind of density we're looking for. We should not destroy every building, but we cannot preserve them all either.

I don't think it would take up the entire block, probably half; but I didn't say copy the FTW Omni, just a similar concept. The upper floors are very well designed and the purchase price for the condos was pretty reasonable when I last looked.

I never knew there were so many people in our community who loathed distinctive architecture. That's a shame. I hope none of you guys ever go to Paris (or anywhere in Europe), you'll absolutely hate it.

Why are you so eager to assign motives and opinions to people unjustifiably? I, for one, love "distinctive architecture" as much as I love neoclassical and modern architecture. I think what many people here are suffering from is a lack of balance and temperance in their preferences. All things in moderation.


This will be a major fail if we occupy the whole damn site with ONE huge building like the Omni.

Not sure if that is even feasible. That is quite a large block. A building that occupies the whole block would be unusual.

I never knew there were so many people in our community who loathed distinctive architecture. That's a shame. I hope none of you guys ever go to Paris (or anywhere in Europe), you'll absolutely hate it.

Distinctive architecture doesn't mean good or even artistic architecture. I want to preserver any historic building that can do any of the following items... Be a functional work of art (Stage Center can't be functional), Be functional and inspirational (once again, not functional). Able to be used in modern means with a historic look and feel (again, don't see the Stage Center being able to do this). When it comes to works of art and being functional, the Stage Center isn't even functional as a tourist attraction (which is how i define a lot of the work in Paris)....

I never knew there were so many people in our community who loathed distinctive architecture. That's a shame. I hope none of you guys ever go to Paris (or anywhere in Europe), you'll absolutely hate it.

Interesting take. I spent a spring in England and then lived in Spain for a year, then in Italy for a year, followed by three months in France before returning to OKC. I'm pretty sure I don't loathe distinctive architecture. I just think the Stage Center is pretty unattractive and worthless at its current location.

I.M. Pei said that, too.

I have accepted the loss of Stage Center and am ready for change. I cant wait to see what proposals come in. However, I have a nagging gut feeling that we are going to regret doing this...

Are we really willing to demolish ANY block just for a new skyscraper? (shudders)

There's a breached sanctity of landmark-occupied sites, whether or not the landmark is too progressive for one's liking. Preservation in OKC, something we used to pride ourselves on a few years ago, is very weak right now. Pre-SR it used to be quite the rallying cry.

I'm reminded of an old joke. The Lone Ranger and Tonto are surrounded by Apaches and out of bullets. The Lone Ranger turns to his trusty companion and says "it looks like we're done for, old friend". And Tonto says to him "what this 'we' stuff, white man?"

Stage Center is owned by the Kirkpatrick Center Fund, a non-profit organization. They don't have the money to rehab the place. They lose money on it every year. No one else has stepped forward to invest in it. There is rumored to be a buyer for the property, but the speculation is that they want to build some sort of skyscraper there. At no point in time did "we" make any decision regarding Stage Center. The Pei Plan back in the 60s and 70s resulted in a lot of demolished buildings that I wish were still around today, but that was a public works project. The city was involved in the planning and execution of that plan. Stage Center is a privately owned building that appears to be ready to be sold to another private owner. There's no "we" here.

I don't hate that building but I'm not going to chain myself to it to stop the bulldozers either. If you'll look back at my old posts, I was heavily against the demolitions by Sandridge and thought those buildings needed to be preserved. I understand that 20 or 30 years from now we might have a new appreciation for Stage Center and say "boy, I wish we had that building back, it was so cool and different". On the other hand, 20 or 30 years from now that building is likely to still be vacant unless someone comes along who just loves Stage Center and has money to burn.

The problem with Stage Center is that it isn't just sitting there minding its own business. Because of the large setbacks and lack of sidewalk interaction it is creating a psychological pedestrian barrier, which is why after 50 years nothing has ever been built west or south of it – even during the oil boom years.

It is going to be hard enough to create a pedestrian friendly environment between Film Row and downtown, we don’t need Stage center adding 450 feet of nothingness to the trip.

Someone who loves the Pompidou Centre in Paris should explain to me what is so heinous about the Stage Center's design/appearance.

Stage Center is owned by the Kirkpatrick Center Fund, a non-profit organization. They don't have the money to rehab the place. They lose money on it every year. No one else has stepped forward to invest in it. 20 or 30 years from now that building is likely to still be vacant unless someone comes along who just loves Stage Center and has money to burn.

Actually, they DO have the means to continue funding it, and Chris Keesee is a big supporter of architecture and public art. This simply is too great of a financial burden to bear, and no other group has come forward to buy it. It's interesting architecture - some would say that it' an "important" building - but that isn't enough. Not even for those who could write unlimited checks.

Someone who loves the Pompidou Centre in Paris should explain to me what is so heinous about the Stage Center's design/appearance.

How far is it set back from the street? Answer, it isn't.

How far is it set back from the street? Answer, it isn't.

If you are talking about the Pompidou, it has been a couple of years since I have been there, but I believe it is set back about 100 ft or so with a plaza in front. It may be architecturally noteworthy, but like SC has been more criticized than loved. It is not warm and inviting. It is "interesting" though. Been there many times and still can't decide if I like it....actually kind of like how I feel about SC.

The problem with Stage Center is that it isn't just sitting there minding its own business. Because of the large setbacks and lack of sidewalk interaction it is creating a psychological pedestrian barrier, which is why after 50 years nothing has ever been built west or south of it – even during the oil boom years.

It is going to be hard enough to create a pedestrian friendly environment between Film Row and downtown, we don’t need Stage center adding 450 feet of nothingness to the trip.

Thank you. Sometimes it's hard for me to realize points like this aren't obvious.

If you are talking about the Pompidou, it has been a couple of years since I have been there, but I believe it is set back about 100 ft or so with a plaza in front. It may be architecturally noteworthy, but like SC has been more criticized than loved. It is not warm and inviting. It is "interesting" though. Been there many times and still can't decide if I like it....actually kind of like how I feel about SC.

It has a plaza on one side but the other 3 sides are right up against the sidewalk.

Someone who loves the Pompidou Centre in Paris should explain to me what is so heinous about the Stage Center's design/appearance.

What does that have to do with it? This is a straw man. A random unique building in Paris is not the magic bullet to stop criticism of the way Stage Center looks. Invoking architecture in European cities is not appealing to some higher sense of aesthetic. Many of us here have traveled throughout Europe, at least to larger cities such as Paris, and are not unaware of what kinds of unique buildings have been constructed there.

Someone who loves the Pompidou Centre in Paris should explain to me what is so heinous about the Stage Center's design/appearance.

Well as someone who doesn't like the Pompidou Centre let me say it looks ass ugly. But the reason it "works" (if it works) in Paris is because it stands out in a heavily developed city with a lot of foot traffic. In Paris, people are going to walk by the Pompidou Centre on their way to somewhere else. In OKC, nobody goes by Stage Center because there's not a hell of a lot on the other side. Part of the reason there's not a hell of a lot on the other side is because Stage Center is there and nobody goes there. If you replace Stage Center with a 30 story office building, you suddenly have people coming and going. Paris doesn't have that problem. You can put an ass ugly building there and it won't drive people away.

Rats. Double post.

It has a plaza on one side but the other 3 sides are right up against the sidewalk.

Not exactly true. But I am sure thats the way it looks when you googled it. The back side street is mainly a service area and not really a pedestrian area. The size of the building also obscures the actualdistance from the street as I know at least one side is set back fully as much as the SC is. The pedestrian side is the plaza side. It is also on one of those super blocks you so hate. the impact of the architecture is only felt because of the plaza and is really the only perspective that is relevant ... The front and front corner angles. If it was actually in an area you favor..all surrounded by like sized buildings all abutting the street, it would not achieve the effect the architect intended. Same would be true of the SC. It actually needs some setback to create the intended drama.

It actually needs some setback to create the intended drama.

...and that is why it is not an appropriate building for downtown.

Also, are you seriously going to say that isn't built to the sidewalk?

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/paris1.jpg

Here's the other thing about the Pompidou Centre -- Paris has a particular style of architecture all throughout the city. So something like this really stands out. It is clearly intentional. It has an industrial/construction vibe that clashes with the rest of the city. For those who like it, it is like the mole on Cindy Crawford's cheek. OKC does not have a distinctive style of architecture that Stage Center stands out against. It just looks like a big industrial concrete thing in a city with a lot of big industrial concrete things. The contrast isn't there.

...and that is why it is not an appropriate building for downtown.

Also, are you seriously going to say that isn't built to the sidewalk?

http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x378/KerryinJax/paris1.jpg

I didn't dispute the back is against the street. But it isn't much of a pedestrian street and the back is mostly servicing area. The sides have more setback, but still close. But the building is clearly meant to be seen from the plaza side where you can actually SEE it the way the design calls for and the back is more incidental. I don't think you can appreciate the impact the building has unless you go see it and walk around it and not just Google it. Just like the SC really requires setback to see the real impact of the design...wouldn't work so well if it were up to the sidewalk. Where I disagree with the SC is the trees in front. If it stays, I would completely change the landscaping and visual approach. I think more would like it then. And it wouldn't be so out of place in an urban environment. Imagine the bus station as a restaurant with outdoor seating overlooking it and it would actually be an interesting environment, especially if it gets built up around it.

Thank you. I agree. I think some generation - the next perhaps - will lament the destruction of Stage Center. My daughter, in fact, when she was visiting and we were touring downtown to see what had happened since she was last here - said about Stage Center, "That's the most interesting building in Oklahoma City." I told her we thought it was going to be torn down, and she said that would be a shame because, "There's very little in downtown Oklahoma City that is different from any other city of similar size. That building sets Oklahoma City apart. Every city should have something unique, whether it's practical or not"

It's an interesting observation that your daughter makes. It is definitely an element unique to our downtown.

Here's the other thing about the Pompidou Centre -- Paris has a particular style of architecture all throughout the city. So something like this really stands out. It is clearly intentional. It has an industrial/construction vibe that clashes with the rest of the city. For those who like it, it is like the mole on Cindy Crawford's cheek. OKC does not have a distinctive style of architecture that Stage Center stands out against. It just looks like a big industrial concrete thing in a city with a lot of big industrial concrete things. The contrast isn't there.

Oh I don't know... maybe the contrast is at a more basic level. OKC's downtown architecture is very conservative. Even the shiny new Devon tower, while bold for Oklahoma, is pretty tame compared to a lot of what is going on out there. Stage Center is really the only crazy-looking design in our city that I can think of off-hand. So perhaps there is the contrast.

Mona Lisa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa)

I have to wonder if you linked to this thinking you were pointing out a zinger. It's actually quite interesting if you read through the entire article... according to your own reference, the Mona Lisa was very bold for its time because it was one of the very first paintings to depict a woman sitting before a landscape. The article notes that Leonardo was one of the first artists to use "aerial perspective." There is also much discussion about the sensual nature of the painting, which would have been controversial in a time where the vast majority of paintings were not of women, and those that were usually were in some sort of a religious context. So actually yes for its time I am going to say that I believe the Mona Lisa was quite forward-thinking. Your problem is that you are applying 21st Century ideals to something from the 1500s. So in a way you are sort of reinforcing my argument with this example... what is unusual today might be common-place/accepted/etc. tomorrow. When something does become common-place, or at least certain facets of the work do, then the very first examples of that new style become historically significant. Who knows if Stage Center will ultimately fall into that category....

Those buildings actually had useful business purposes that paid the bills to renovate them.

I guess I am not following what you are wanting to say, because everything I mentioned in my last post had to do with buildings that were ultimately demolished because at some point down the line a developer pitched that the building in question had outlived its purpose. ? But anyway those buildings were still lost, and clearly businessmen thought that they did not have a business purpose any longer. Does that mean you are happy or at least indifferent that urban renewal occurred? I'm just trying to understand what you are advocating, I guess I'm confused by your post.


Unless the Stage Center becomes Larry Nichols home or another rich guy's home its going to be bought out and demolished.

Sadly I think you are right. You know, I stumbled across the floor plans for Stage Center a few nights ago somewhere on the internet. Looking it over, one possible use for the site that came to mind was gutting the interior and then using it as a museum of some sort... perhaps modern art. Unfortunately I don't know of any such significant collections in OKC that doesn't already have a home.

Something else that came to mind was that the several theaters in the building were about the right size for university classrooms.

Also, I could be mistaken but I think I ran across a 35 year old article that made reference to Stage Center (before it was constructed) being the crown jewel / centerpiece of the Myriad Gardens. If so it is unfortunate that today the site is considered to be so separated from the gardens.

I have to wonder if you linked to this thinking you were pointing out a zinger. It's actually quite interesting if you read through the entire article... according to your own reference, the Mona Lisa was very bold for its time because it was one of the very first paintings to depict a woman sitting before a landscape. The article notes that Leonardo was one of the first artists to use "aerial perspective." There is also much discussion about the sensual nature of the painting, which would have been controversial in a time where the vast majority of paintings were not of women, and those that were usually were in some sort of a religious context. So actually yes for its time I am going to say that I believe the Mona Lisa was quite forward-thinking. Your problem is that you are applying 21st Century ideals to something from the 1500s. So in a way you are sort of reinforcing my argument with this example... what is unusual today might be common-place/accepted/etc. tomorrow. When something does become common-place, or at least certain facets of the work do, then the very first examples of that new style become historically significant. Who knows if Stage Center will ultimately fall into that category....

It's kind of fun to watch you grasp at straws here. Don't outsmart your common sense.

It's kind of fun to watch you grasp at straws here. Don't outsmart your common sense.

Huh? Questor is great, who are you?

Sadly I think you are right. You know, I stumbled across the floor plans for Stage Center a few nights ago somewhere on the internet. Looking it over, one possible use for the site that came to mind was gutting the interior and then using it as a museum of some sort... perhaps modern art. Unfortunately I don't know of any such significant collections in OKC that doesn't already have a home.

Something else that came to mind was that the several theaters in the building were about the right size for university classrooms.

Also, I could be mistaken but I think I ran across a 35 year old article that made reference to Stage Center (before it was constructed) being the crown jewel / centerpiece of the Myriad Gardens. If so it is unfortunate that today the site is considered to be so separated from the gardens.

Again, I bear no ill will towards Stage Center. The rumor is that a big company wants to buy the land and use it for a corporate headquarters. If there is any truth to this rumor, it's going to take a lot of money and political will to save this building. I don't think that money and political will exist. That is the cold hard reality.

The tragedy in all the buildings that were lost to urban renewal is that many were not replaced. This does not appear to be a danger with Stage Center.

Huh? Questor is great, who are you?

I'm not saying anything about Questor personally. And, in fact, he was correct in almost everything he mentioned. He just missed the point completely.

Let me help them out ethansisson because they aren't going to get it otherwise

Mona Lisa - unique and shocking when painted. Today, not unique or shocking.
Stage Center - unique and shocking when built. Today, not unique or shocking.

Mona Lisa - people travel across oceans to see it because of who painted it.
Stage Center - people don't walk across the street to see it. In fact, it is itself a barrier to walkability.

Not saying everyone hates Stage Center, not the vast majority do.

Do we know the vast majority hate the Stage Center? Have I missed a survey?

Do we know the vast majority hate the Stage Center? Have I missed a survey?

Point taken. I actually have no idea what percentage of people don't like it. If being built today I wonder what the pro-Stage Center people would say about it.

I think it's dishonest or at best disingenuous to try and categorize the building as basically having no cultural significance. I mean that's basically what you are saying.

If that were true, Time Magazine would not have praised it as, "an exquisitely human building in its scale, organization, and intriguing unpredictabilities.”

If that were true, a model of this building would not be setting in the Museum of Modern Art in New York.

If that were true, the AIA wouldn't have given it their national award the year it was built, and the Oklahoma chapter wouldn't have called it one of the best buildings in Oklahoma a decade or two after that.

I get it, you don't like it. I get it, you don't think it is as popular as probably the single most iconic painting in the world, imagine that.

Do we know the vast majority hate the Stage Center? Have I missed a survey?

Yeah, you missed the latest Kerry research symposium.. Just the facts, as they say

Spartan - see post #1144

Boston City Hall won a bunch of awards in the same time period. I don't know what to say other than the people giving out the awards back then either sucked or they didn't have much to choose from. Maybe they should just skip years where there is no building worth giving an award to.

From the Boston City Hall unveiling:


In the 1960s, then-Mayor John Collins reportedly gasped as the design was first unveiled, and someone in the room blurted out, "What the hell is that?"

Spartan - see post #1144

Yeah I saw, I just can't help but poke fun at my fellow old timers on here ;)

Honestly there is no point to this. You guys have noticed that even I have stopped crying for it to be preserved, I hope...

No worries Spartan. I understand some people see this as just another mistake in a long history of mistakes. At least this time something will actually replace what is lost and make other historic buildings in the area more viable. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a body part to save the body.

No worries Spartan. I understand some people see this as just another mistake in a long history of mistakes. At least this time something will actually replace what is lost and make other historic buildings in the area more viable. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a body part to save the body.

The question is, will the replacement be worth it? If we get some bland four story office building, the answer is a decided NO. The only thing that I think would be a worthy replacement would be something iconic, as that's what we'll be destroying to get it.

I don't think anything worse can be built. If someone proposed something like this today within 2 miles of downtown everyone would be against it.