So whats a good practical limit to how much should be spent on the Stage Center? One thing this study won't get good measure on is the artistic and emotional value of the building.

Study to be done on the Stage Center for possible renovation!http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-stage-center-study-building-story,0,319058.story

Nice, so is this just a coincidence, or is someone out their actually listening? lol...I wonder, since Devon, the City, and Arts Council are funding the study, they would all have to come to agreement to decide its fate. I can see them demolishing the building, and building a brand new, state of the art, performance theater, funded by all three supporters, that would be great, and much needed for that area, it has Devon to the north, Myriad Gardens to the SE, and possibly more new development to the West and NW, this would be a prime location for a new performance theater/museum, something similar to the The Leonardo in Salt Lake City www.theleonardo.com

www.theleonardo.com[/url]

With all due respect, you have got to be kidding. That has got to be one of the ugliest and blandest examples of modernist architecture I have ever seen. No matter WHAT they put on the inside there is no hope for that structure ever having any amount of the character that Stage Center has. Stage Center can be re-purposed for a number of things true, but the unique quality is its exterior originality. When put in the context of when it was built, it is a icon of the last century whose place in history should be respected. Rant Over (as I read in another thread)

I am not comparing architecture, I am simply stating that the Stage Center can be renovated/expanded, and it can do some of the same events as The Leonardo, I was just using The Leonardo as an example of events and synergy its brings to the SLC downtown area, so calm down, gosh...

Please accept my apologies. The Sandridge affairs still has me incredibly pissed off and I am ready to get on the preservationist barricades. You are right. Stage Center could be reborn with another purpose... any purpose as long as it is preserved. I still think that a good dinner theatre with outside cafes would be great.

With all due respect, you have got to be kidding. That has got to be one of the ugliest and blandest examples of modernist architecture I have ever seen. No matter WHAT they put on the inside there is no hope for that structure ever having any amount of the character that Stage Center has. Stage Center can be re-purposed for a number of things true, but the unique quality is its exterior originality. When put in the context of when it was built, it is a icon of the last century whose place in history should be respected. Rant Over (as I read in another thread)

Second.

The preservationist army is recruiting, David. :]

Third.

All they should have to do is get word out on a national level, since there must be rich philanthropists out there willing to put up some money. A billion dollars won't bring back the Stage Center once it's gone. Why can't people see that. If it goes away, then in thirty years people will look back at how shortsighted people were, like everyone does with folks in the 60s. If I know human nature, people then only thought about themselves and the temporary benefits and not the next generation that will never see their own history. They don't care because most of them are likely dead.

Fourth. Once a building is gone, it is effectively gone forever. Why is that so hard to understand?

Third.

All they should have to do is get word out on a national level, since there must be rich philanthropists out there willing to put up some money. A billion dollars won't bring back the Stage Center once it's gone. Why can't people see that. If it goes away, then in thirty years people will look back at how shortsighted people were, like everyone does with folks in the 60s. If I know human nature, people then only thought about themselves and the temporary benefits and not the next generation that will never see their own history. They don't care because most of them are likely dead.

if it is replaced with something that looks and functions great that is a wonderfull venue ... then in 30's lots of people will still be happy that the stage center is gone .. ..

i don't really care either way ... it is a very unique building that adds something different to our downtown .. however i can see why some don't like it

I've enjoyed several shows there over the years. However, it's apparent the structure was not designed well to withstand environmental factors, i.e. rainwater. You also see bare dirt under walkways where no sun can reach. The architect seemed to forget his pretty design would have to live outdoors and not on paper.

I've enjoyed several shows there over the years. However, it's apparent the structure was not designed well to withstand environmental factors, i.e. rainwater. You also see bare dirt under walkways where no sun can reach. The architect seemed to forget his pretty design would have to live outdoors and not on paper.

Even Frank Lloyd Wright had that problem with many of his commissions.

if it is replaced with something that looks and functions great that is a wonderfull venue ... then in 30's lots of people will still be happy that the stage center is gone .. ..

i don't really care either way ... it is a very unique building that adds something different to our downtown .. however i can see why some don't like it

So what we should take from this, is that you're really apathetic either way, and could care less?

I've always loved the building. Although I think it's more interesting than attractive, and there's a lot of wasted space, to me it's far more important to preserve it than the Gold Dome or some of the other buildings people have gone gaga over. I'm kind of amazed at what a large percentage of my life has been spent in Oklahoma City, and the Stage Center has always been there. I don't want it to go away.

I think the Gold Dome benefits, in a populist sort of way, from simply not being downtown. As odd as that sounds.. but I'm definitely glad we saved it, regardless of whatever financial condition it is currently in. The rift between Dr. Lam and the Prohibition Room is too bad, because that is a perfect tenant for that building, too.

The loss of Stage center or the Gold Dome would be a travesty.

Yes, Stage Center began as the Mummers Theatre, but for many years before it had the Stage center moniker, it was the Oklahoma Theater Center. I performed in many productions there between 1974-1977, in both of its two theaters (the Arena and the Thrust stages) including "A Christmas Carol," "A Company Of Wayward Saints," "Appleseed," and "Story Theatre."

It would be a damn shame to tear it down.

From that KFOR video, it looks like the inside is in far worse shape than the exterior -- and that's saying something.

I'm afraid the consultants are going to come back with a $20 million (or similar) estimate for repairs and that there won't be the money or desire to pull off a massive renovation.

Stage Center may close its curtains shy of 40th anniversary (http://newsok.com/stage-center-may-close-its-curtains-shy-of-40th-anniversary/article/3582398)

Show could be over at Stage Center following a “Perils of Pauline” life

BY STEVE LACKMEYER slackmeyer@opubco.com
Published: July 2, 2011

Without dispute, Jim Tolbert is regarded as the guardian angel of Oklahoma City's troubled Stage Center theater.

He's an unlikely theatrical guardian in some respects; he carefully chooses his words, he's quiet and reserved in public, and not one prone to drama. Yet that's what he's facing as he acknowledges the theater he's loved for so long may soon be reduced to rubble.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/stagecenter.jpg

per Steve's recent article, the Stage Center might be demolished, this would be prime location for new high rise

I knew there was a Stage Center thread but it didn't show up in a search. You can move that latest article to this one. Sorry.

Put me down as someone who loves this building. I don't even know why. Now, if the building is a danger to citzens, I could understand tearing it down. If not, I don't understand why anyone would tear it down. If someone comes to the city and says they want to build a highrise there and we think they're serious, then sure, consider destroying it. But, let's not create an empty lot like the one where the soon to be school is located. We don't need a parking lot next to the Myriad Gardens for years when we can at least have something there that's visually interesting instead.

Tearing this down would be like tearing down the Bavinger House on purpose. Please Lord, help them find a reason to save it.

Makes me sad, but as I read Steve's article, one thought rings out in my head. It's gone. Irrespective of what rises up in the spot it occupies, it's gone.

Tearing this down would be like tearing down the Bavinger House on purpose. Please Lord, help them find a reason to save it.
ditto

With the elementary school going in nearby, I think they ought to turn it into a children's museum. It sure looks like one...

With the elementary school going in nearby, I think they ought to turn it into a children's museum. It sure looks like one...

Or even a creative play area.

Place is flooded and full of mold... Sad, I used to play there as a kid and throw apples at the bums that slept on the bus stop bench right across walker.. our old address was 11 S Walker before Urban renewal took us out.. I hate to see my old playground go.. It was abandaned back in th 70's and haunted also..

Makes me sad, but as I read Steve's article, one thought rings out in my head. It's gone. Irrespective of what rises up in the spot it occupies, it's gone.

I think you're right, Kevin. As soon as I saw that Devon was helping fund the "consultant," I knew the end of this story. Sad, but true. This city is fast becoming a company town with leadership from CHK and Devon sitting on every board, chairing this and that commission, funding every other study...I know CHK & Devon have done much good. But it comes with a price. It's the Golden Rule: He who has the gold - rules.

Here's a repeat from April when I toured the place. (for the lazy that don't want to go back a few pages)


http://vimeo.com/22183438

Seems like some have been gunning for this building's demise for as long as I can remember. I was just downtown today taking the nephews on a tour of their city for the first time and this was one of the places that we stopped to look at. We spent hours downtown. While I think our downtown is very pretty, it did strike me how so much of it is very generic, could be anywhere, cityscape. The Memorial was a high point, and so was the Myriad Gardens. And not surprisingly so was Stage Center... it's iconic and unmistakable. Let's face it any structure can be saved and made safe with the right amount of money, and if it can't it can be replaced and reworked to look like the original. Seems like what the article is really saying is that, unlike say the Skirvin, no one is willing to do this because maybe the structure doesn't have a clear money return. It's unfortunate that we don't have more advocacy here for preserving sites that are truly works of art and improve the quality of life for everyone regardless of their economic standing. Or maybe we do but even those groups are not strong advocates for Stage Center. It does seem like there isn't much modernist architecture anywhere in the city, and so there probably isn't an appreciation for it.

It may look nice and pretty, but it isn't a very useable space. Takes up a ton of space for the small size the performance venues really are.

It may look nice and pretty, but it isn't a very useable space. Takes up a ton of space for the small size the performance venues really are.

As much as I love the Stage Center, I've never heard anyone say it looks nice and pretty. LOL

As for the peformance venues, it was never meant to compete with the Civic Center. It served a complete different purpose and the theater areas did that very well. It doesn't have to take of every inch of that block to do so.

I travel to Baltimore on occasion, and always visit the Mummers' "big brother" when there. It seems there are many parallels. Here's some links to local stories on the Mechanic from a few years back:

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/070810mechanic.asp

http://www.davidsbrown.com/commercial/commercial-upcoming/mechanic_theater.html

http://www.baltimoregrows.com/2008/09/03/514/

Without going into much detail, the Mummers was part of my life until it closed after the first season. My memories (such as they are) are of a new and modern architecture. I even recall telling Mack S. that it needed flat tv screens on the wall (1970)!

I have a few low quality pics of the Mechanic, but as I was looking around it, I was most impressed by how similar the two building are... not just in design, but in the details of time, as how the concrete staining from years of water passing over it was consistent and alike, and how the concrete itself was almost exactly the same color and consistency. The buildings really are a kind of work of art.

Bit OkC has never been a theater town, really more into sports. So unless Devon has some plans, or perhaps Chris K. decides to jump in, I feel that the Oklahoman article is a final obituary. I hope it is not demolished simply for a parking lot.

For all the conspiracy theorists here who don't want Devon to help pay for the study and resent their financial gifts to the city, please go out and raise the millions it will take for mold and mildew remediation, structural remediation, aesthetic remodel, mechanical systems remodel, ongoing maintenance costs of structure and grounds, and probably ongoing negative cash flow required for it to operate. WHO do you expect to address these problems. You don't want more taxes to pay for needless causes. You didn't attend events there with enough frequency to provide adequate cash flow and there is no indication that you will in the future. You just want others to keep paying for things favorable to your cause, but for which you cannot rally the finances to support. If this is something that irritates you then get out there and work for it. It will be easy enough to change an opinion of a study no matter who it is funded by....go raise the money and prove that it has value, at least to some. And VALUE is when someone cares enough to actually PAY FOR IT, not just talk about liking it or the idea of it.

I'm in the middle. While I think the Stage Center is unique and actually compliments the Myriad Gardens and will likely compliment the new school, if someone wants to pay a bunch of money to buy the property and put something of substance on it, I'm OK with that too. I'm also more than willing to spend tax money to remediate/renovate it if that's an option as well. My opinion is that I don't want it torn down "in case" someone wants to build a big impressive property on it and it sit empty for 20 years or be turned into surface parking. At least it's a conversation piece at this point in time.

Guys and gals, I'm going to share the bitter truth with you: I suspect that if you want Stage Center to survive, then it will require a community-wide rally for the "cause" that will include a willingness to tap into public money to make it viable for the future. Is this a community asset? And if so, how valuable is that asset?

Surely Peter Dolese is already organizing such a movement.

Guys and gals, I'm going to share the bitter truth with you: I suspect that if you want Stage Center to survive, then it will require a community-wide rally for the "cause" that will include a willingness to tap into public money to make it viable for the future. Is this a community asset? And if so, how valuable is that asset?

I agree. To me, that would be a proper use of public money. If we can find millions and millions for big business, we can find money for a community arts center. If it needs to be fixed up - let's make it usable! Nobody from out-of-town visits downtown without mentioning that building. Love it or hate it - it's unique, it's iconic, it shows a progressive mindset, it shows people we are more than plain vanilla, it's just such a shame.

I don't really like the design of the Stage Center but I think it should be an attempt to renovate it but is very expensive. I don't see it getting saved not unless Devon or any one else with money wants to save it. Well it's a cycle at least it's not as bad as what happened to the Biltmore.

I agree. To me, that would be a proper use of public money. If we can find millions and millions for big business, we can find money for a community arts center. If it needs to be fixed up - let's make it usable! Nobody from out-of-town visits downtown without mentioning that building. Love it or hate it - it's unique, it's iconic, it shows a progressive mindset, it shows people we are more than plain vanilla, it's just such a shame.

Agree. I'd certainly be willing to be part of an effort to save it.

I agree. To me, that would be a proper use of public money. If we can find millions and millions for big business, we can find money for a community arts center. If it needs to be fixed up - let's make it usable! Nobody from out-of-town visits downtown without mentioning that building. Love it or hate it - it's unique, it's iconic, it shows a progressive mindset, it shows people we are more than plain vanilla, it's just such a shame.

I agree that we ought to try to save it, but it needs to start at a grass roots level and only involve public money if it is shown that there is significant interest among the citizenry - more than a few board posters. We also need to decide if it is being saved as a "piece of art" or as a performance venue. If as a performance venue, then we need to identify the market segment it would be serving and make sure it will be used. To spend millions and millions on something that will have no use when finished would be a shame. So, who will use it and how often, and who will pay to go use/see the events?

If its long term use and real value is identified, and if the grass roots effort has raised a significant amount of seed capital to show COMMITTED interest, then I think the public should have an opportunity to vote on the investment to complete it.

I remember trying to do a fundraiser for the Mummers after the first season. Folks in support of trying to raise enough capital to make it through to the next season, with decorated shoeboxes with "Have a Heart, save the Mummers" as the slogan. It was close to Valentine's day you see.

It was unsuccessful. The Mummers folded, and the saga began.

Mack S. had some options to keep the Mummers open, but he must of felt that the price was too high. I believe he later felt "woulda, shoulda, coulda".

Too bad it could not have been included in the project funding that fixed up the Civic Center. That turned out pretty well.

Sorry but couldn't disagree more about the Civic Center. Abomination comes to mind. It looked like they plopped a cruise ship in the middle of the magnificent Art Deco lobby. Went to events before and after the remodel, and will never go to another event in the new one again. The sound system was poor and the sight lines were even worse.

Sorry but couldn't disagree more about the Civic Center. Abomination comes to mind. It looked like they plopped a cruise ship in the middle of the magnificent Art Deco lobby. Went to events before and after the remodel, and will never go to another event in the new one again. The sound system was poor and the sight lines were even worse.

All you do is talk bad about OKC, Civic Center, Maps, etc;, etc;, you must be miserable having to live in this hell hole, if I were you, I'd pack my bags and move.

Some people only see corruption, mismanagement, crime, waste, etc., etc., etc. But they aren't usually the ones who are actively engaged in actually DOING things. Their world is nothing but negatives. Every once in awhile you would think they could see something positive in something other than their own thoughts. OKC has gotten an amazing amount out of what we have put in. Other cities use OKC as an example. But it will never be good enough for those who stand on the periphery and throw rocks.

I just checked the state's website and am really surprised to see that this building is not listed in the historic register. I realize most buildings have to be 50 years old for consideration, but that's a guideline not a rule. I found that the model and plans for this building are on display at MOMA in NYC. How on earth is this site not protected? The freaking Milk Bottle on Classen is on the register but this building isn't? WTF?

I just checked the state's website and am really surprised to see that this building is not listed in the historic register. I realize most buildings have to be 50 years old for consideration, but that's a guideline not a rule. I found that the model and plans for this building are on display at MOMA in NYC. How on earth is this site not protected? The freaking Milk Bottle on Classen is on the register but this building isn't? WTF?

I know that there can be exceptions to the 50+ rule because the Gold Dome was granted the status under the exception clause.

Sorry but couldn't disagree more about the Civic Center. Abomination comes to mind. It looked like they plopped a cruise ship in the middle of the magnificent Art Deco lobby. Went to events before and after the remodel, and will never go to another event in the new one again. The sound system was poor and the sight lines were even worse.

Maybe you need to see your eye doctor and get your hearing checked. The acoustics in the Civic Center are outstanding. Compared to what it was like before....no comparison....sound was horrible in the old Civic Center. And there's not a bad seat in the house....I've sat on every level.

Sorry but couldn't disagree more about the Civic Center. Abomination comes to mind. It looked like they plopped a cruise ship in the middle of the magnificent Art Deco lobby. Went to events before and after the remodel, and will never go to another event in the new one again. The sound system was poor and the sight lines were even worse.

Well, this is a surprising statement coming from someone so cultured and experienced in the finer things. You are usually so open minded and positive.

Larry, give it up. You have now become a cartoon character and have lost all credibility.

Maybe you need to see your eye doctor and get your hearing checked. The acoustics in the Civic Center are outstanding. Compared to what it was like before....no comparison....sound was horrible in the old Civic Center. And there's not a bad seat in the house....I've sat on every level.

I agree with you Patrick about the Civic Center. There's no comparison. It's light years better than the 'old' Civic Center.

I found the Civic Center to be outstanding -- really a wonderful venue for Oklahoma City. Surprised to see the negative post.

I just checked the state's website and am really surprised to see that this building is not listed in the historic register. I realize most buildings have to be 50 years old for consideration, but that's a guideline not a rule. I found that the model and plans for this building are on display at MOMA in NYC. How on earth is this site not protected? The freaking Milk Bottle on Classen is on the register but this building isn't? WTF?

Yep.

It will be a sad day when (if?) it is carted off as rubble.

I found the Civic Center to be outstanding -- really a wonderful venue for Oklahoma City. Surprised to see the negative post.

You have to consider the source and look at all of his postings, he's always negative on, and about, everything OKC does.

Well, this is a surprising statement coming from someone so cultured and experienced in the finer things. You are usually so open minded and positive.

Larry, give it up. You have now become a cartoon character and have lost all credibility.

How do you figure? It was my opinion based on my experience and first hand observation. Your mileage may vary. And I do post positives from time to time. Sorry if you and RC missed them.

Patrick, thank you for your concern, eye sight and hearing are fine, they are virtually unchanged from then (the before/after). We were in the "same seat/row after as before and if not for the projection screen utilized during the performance, we wouldn't have been able to tell what was happening. Much farther from the stage. Before I was close enough to see the expression on the performers faces...a very enjoyable experience. Was expecting even better after the remodel (believed the hype). Since it was the same routines that we had seen on TV many a time in reruns, we knew the dialog. But since we were watching it on screen and filling in the dialog on our own, might as well have stayed home and got the DVD (which I later did).

You have to consider the source and look at all of his postings, he's always negative on, and about, everything OKC does.

Untrue. While most of my posts could be characterized that way, there have been positive posts from time to time (sorry if you missed them). Heck, I have even agreed with you a time or two! LOL

I applaud them when they do something right, and go "negative" when they do something wrong. Is it my fault that they seem to be doing more wrong to comment on than right? I think not.

I agree with you Patrick about the Civic Center. There's no comparison. It's light years better than the 'old' Civic Center.

I'm going to agree and disagree with everyone. While I actually like the way the interior of the Civic Center now looks, I agree that it has a certain ocean liner type feel to it. I just happen to like that look. And I think the acoustics are really variable. We saw Rent, sat in the front row of the balcony and could barely hear and certainly couldn't discern lyrics. My sister in law was here when Phantom of the Opera was here once (laughably, she's from NYC and had never seen it) and said she was dying to go. Because it was late notice, the only seats we could get were box seats at about the same level as the balcony. I was really worried that we wouldn't hear a thing, but had quite the opposite experience. So, while in some places the acoustics are quite nice, in others they're terrible (small sample size, I realize). From then on, we've made certain we have very good seats or we don't go.

I've always sat in box seats or in the front row of the grand tier or mezzanine level.

And I've not seen a play but only listed to musical performances.

Larry,

Based upon your description of things, it seems your issue with the Civic Center has more to do with the quality of the production, and not the building itself.

While many can concede that some sightlines are limited, especially in the box areas, overall the sightlines have greatly improved.

The seat farthest away from the stage is only 75 feet away, that being on the uppermost balcony level. Not many performance houses can claim that.

Studies done by outside acoustical engineer firms have, time and time again, shown that the hall itself ranks as one of the top halls in the country.

Most problems with the hall's acoustics have NOTHING to do with the hall itself and everything to do with the sound tech or engineer of the performing arts group who is presenting a show there. Most presenting groups bring in their own sound guys (and equipment), and they have a set sound pattern they tune to for the performances. VERY few ever consult with the in-house acoustician, nor do they try to tune their own sound engineering to the theatre.

They go by what is "standard" for their production and move on. This is especially true for the traveling Broadway-type productions.

I'm going to agree and disagree with everyone. While I actually like the way the interior of the Civic Center now looks, I agree that it has a certain ocean liner type feel to it. I just happen to like that look. And I think the acoustics are really variable. We saw Rent, sat in the front row of the balcony and could barely hear and certainly couldn't discern lyrics. My sister in law was here when Phantom of the Opera was here once (laughably, she's from NYC and had never seen it) and said she was dying to go. Because it was late notice, the only seats we could get were box seats at about the same level as the balcony. I was really worried that we wouldn't hear a thing, but had quite the opposite experience. So, while in some places the acoustics are quite nice, in others they're terrible (small sample size, I realize). From then on, we've made certain we have very good seats or we don't go.

This is pretty much the case in all performance halls I have been to around the world. There is a reason premium seats go for more $. Also consider that in this instance, the designer was charged with containing the hall in a building shell that never was designed or built with optimum proportions for perfect acoustics. We could have improved all seats by eliminating some size and seats. That would have been controversial also. So, we maximized the seating, improved the acoustics immeasurably, retained the historic shell of the building and the great Hall of Mirrors, and did it for a reasonable price. So of course, some on here are totally disappointed because their $15 seat isn't as great as the $100 seat. There ARE some on here who SHOULD stay home and watch it on TV.

BTW, I have seats in various sections depending on the programs, Lyric, Broadway, etc. and don't have perfect hearing, but haven't had any complaints on the sound. When I started and the seats were farther back than what I have worked up to, I couldn't always see the faces clearly as I was used to in the cozier Broadway theaters in NYC. So I continued to renew and move up until now I have great seats. Sometimes you just have to work yourself into the best position you can and be a loyal supporter. Occasional participants aren't going to get the best seats unless they shell out $$$.

I think when I was able to attend and had the box seat reservations I had to make a charitable contribution in addition to paying for the seats. So it was definitely not inexpensive.

That said though the Yo-Yo Ma performance alone was worth all that I spent and more and I'm thankful I had the ability to see him.