Live theater is not covered at all by the Devon Auditorium. It is totally inapproriate for that.

It isn't worth arguing about so fine, Devon auditorium is not suitable for live performances - downtown still has 3 live theater performance venues and Lyric Theater near by.

I was just point out that there is already a facility that meets the need Stage Center used to meet. I came across the flier while doing some related research. Looking at the land-use aerial you can see how Cox, MBG, the Arena, and new convention center will really impact the skyline as it grows. That is a lot of area devoid of any significant height.

I don't think the question is whether Stage Center meets a need, but rather whether it is architecturally significant enough to survive on its own merits. And clearly there are people who feel differently about that issue. There are enough repurposed buildings in the world that the sole question isn't whether we need another theatre. If I were a billionaire I'd buy it and do something wonderful and whimsical with it, as a gift to my city. I still think it would make a fabulous children's museum, especially given its proximity to the school and park. Since I'm not, I suspect I'll be mourning it's destruction.

Live theater is not covered at all by the Devon Auditorium. It is totally inapproriate for that.

But there are live theater's downtown it's even one in the basement of the civic center. I'm not saying the Stage center should be torn down I think it should be saved but I don't think that's gonna happen. Now as for a new development isn't it like big empty lot across the street from the Stage Center (where the construction workers who helped build Devon Tower park).

Cocaine, the empty lot is spoken for, as the site of the new DT elementary school.

As for SC, I've noted before if it had a white knight to let it rise anew from its own issues of disrepair and/or neglect, I think that person or group would have come forward by now. Like betts, if I had the resources, there would be some mighty ticked off peeps in the metro because the future of SC would have already been resolved. Fortunately for the SC haters, me and random number generators are not the best of friends.

Let me say - I am glad Kevin and Betts don't have the money :)

Let me say - I am glad Kevin and Betts don't have the money :)

LOL, you and several others.

It would be appreciated if everyone would be respectful enough to read the comments here instead of forging ahead blindly repeating a made-up intention to tear down Stage Center without replacing it. It has been pointed out four or five times that we do not advocate a speculative demo, and yet the idea that we do continues to be a pillar of your argument.
Much of the empty lots that are now used as parking lots all over the country used to have buildings sitting on them and were torn down for speculative demolition including many in OKC. Most of us saw it happen with our very own eyes bin large part because of the Pei Plan. NYC style demo/build doesn't happen in his part of the country for the most part, too cheap to build outside of the CBD for companies/developers who are indifferent about being located downtown. Too many of us have seen empty lots that were torn down for development sitting vacant for almost 40 years, it's kind of hard to blame us if we are a bit apprehensive about the "tear it down and they will come" mentality regarding the Stage Center property.

Maybe we should just let OCURA handle it, then maybe a proven developer like Hogan can give us a nice two story EIFS building with lots of needed parking on it.....:rolleyes:

Maybe we should just let OCURA handle it, then maybe a proven developer like Hogan can give us a nice two story EIFS building with lots of needed parking on it.....:rolleyes:

There's my fear. Be careful what you wish for....... Or at least be VERY specific when wishing.

There's my fear. Be careful what you wish for....... Or at least be VERY specific when wishing.
Unfortunately I expect something like that to happen more than something to be proud of going in there. Just because someone tries to "raise the standards" of an area doesn't mean others will follow, Dr. McKean found that out in Bricktown. I don't have much faith that something the quality of Devon (not in terms of height, but design quality) will replace SC.

Using straw men arguments in a back-and-forth discussion is very rude since they demonstrate an unwillingness to acknowledge and respond to the other party's position.

Well, the reality is that the discussion is entirely based on straw arguments. There are no solid or publicly released plans for redevelopment. There is no funding for any renovation or re-purposing of the current structure. So, naturally, the entire conversation centers around people inventing scenarios for the site, discussing the merits of those scenarios, and possibly taking a position on them. So, if the introduction of straw men into the conversation results in a disrespectful discourse that should not be had on this forum, then the thread should be locked until a concrete plan with real possibility of funding is introduced as an object to be discussed. As it is now, the only positions anyone can acknowledge or to which anyone can response are, in fact, speculative straw positions. I do not see these as disrespectful attempts to discredit anyone's position, but simply the nature of a conversation between individuals with a sincere interest in what happens to a particular property whose current fate is entirely unknown.

Once we have a real alternate proposal for the site, the potential merits of which can be weighed against any other possibilities, the conversation will become more focused and based on reality. Until, then there is nothing but skepticism, hope, and our imaginations fueling the conversation. Any call for something else at this point, is really a call to suspend the discussion as a whole.

Well, the reality is that the discussion is entirely based on straw arguments. There are no solid or publicly released plans for redevelopment. There is no funding for any renovation or re-purposing of the current structure. So, naturally, the entire conversation centers around people inventing scenarios for the site, discussing the merits of those scenarios, and possibly taking a position on them. So, if the introduction of straw men into the conversation results in a disrespectful discourse that should not be had on this forum, then the thread should be locked until a concrete plan with real possibility of funding is introduced as an object to be discussed. As it is now, the only positions anyone can acknowledge or to which anyone can response are, in fact, speculative straw positions. I do not see these as disrespectful attempts to discredit anyone's position, but simply the nature of a conversation between individuals with a sincere interest in what happens to a particular property whose current fate is entirely unknown.

Once we have a real alternate proposal for the site, the potential merits of which can be weighed against any other possibilities, the conversation will become more focused and based on reality. Until, then there is nothing but skepticism, hope, and our imaginations fueling the conversation. Any call for something else at this point, is really a call to suspend the discussion as a whole.

I understand what you're saying, and I think you're right about that, but that's not really what a straw man is. That might be where part of our disagreement came in. I don't know. I'm just sorry things got so heated. Have a look here: Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

I understand what you're saying, and I think you're right about that, but that's not really what a straw man is. That might be where part of our disagreement came in. I don't know. I'm just sorry things got so heated. Have a look here: Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

I understand what a straw man is. I should have clarified that it's really just people's speculative examples that you're misconstruing as straw men, because they are, of course, made up and you don't adhere to them. All of these positions are, by the very facts of the situation, invented, but that doesn't mean they are invented just to discredit or be rude to you.

Maybe you're just taking people's concerns too personally. No one is trying to put words into your mouth just to disagree with them. Again, if you don't think that SC should be torn down before a proposal is in place, that's perfectly okay. So, when someone is discussing a scenario where SC is torn down without a redevelopment plan in place, they are not talking about you. The reality is that this is done quite often in Oklahoma City, so it is perfectly natural that some may be concerned about that being a possibility, but again, you didn't say that you wanted that and it has been totally acknowledged, at least by me.

...Too many of us have seen empty lots that were torn down for development sitting vacant for almost 40 years, it's kind of hard to blame us if we are a bit apprehensive about the "tear it down and they will come" mentality regarding the Stage Center property...
I'll take it further than that, you can't blame people for categorically disbelieving "they will come" and build on a property where a speculative teardown has taken place. There is virtually zero evidence of this happening in downtown Oklahoma City in the past 40+ years. I of course could be wrong, but since the 1980s I can bring to mind three significant projects - THREE - that have built on downtown land where speculative teardowns took place previously. One is the IRS building, one is the Renaissance Hotel, and one is Devon Tower. In the cases of the hotel and Devon, the properties served as vast parking wastelands for a generation before the new projects came along.

Again, I can accept a purposeful teardown of buildings - even some that might qualify as historic or architecturally significant such as SC - if there were definite, funded plans to replace them with structures of clearly higher and better use.

But after the way we of all cities decimated our downtown during urban renewal I am shocked when I hear someone advocate speculative teardown and suggest that clearing a property will somehow lead to quicker redevelopment. If you have any grasp whatsoever of downtown's history you will KNOW that line is intellectually dishonest. Historically speaking, it just doesn't happen.

Heck, I can better respect the people who just hate SC so much that they say they would rather see an empty lot of grass or parking for the next 40 years than look at SC. I don't understand that point of view or agree with them, but at least they are being honest.

Again, I can accept a purposeful teardown of buildings - even some that might qualify as historic or architecturally significant such as SC - if there were definite, funded plans to replace them with structures of clearly higher and better use.

This is by far the most reasonable answer to this entire "controversy" over SC and one probably 80% of us would agree with.

It would be appreciated if everyone would be respectful enough to read the comments here instead of forging ahead blindly repeating a made-up intention to tear down Stage Center without replacing it. It has been pointed out four or five times that we do not advocate a speculative demo, and yet the idea that we do continues to be a pillar of your argument. Have a little humility and stop assuming you know everything there is to know about what we think.

Oh, you must be new on here... We're not ignoring that you think something better should go there (which begs the question why "better" couldn't go on an unoccupied site), it's just there are really good reasons most of us are skeptical. You should eat those words.

We live by the words bluedog wrote in response to you. When there's a building permit filed in conjunction with a demo permit, then we'll believe it. But it's amazing sometimes the things that will happen during the span of time in between the two permits. The reason so much of downtown was torn down never to be replaced with anything is because there was an oil bust in the 80s. All of us long-timers on this board are painfully aware of all the incredible projects that died in 2008.

NEVER, EVER take a proposed project over an existing building that aint bad. When you learn that lesson, let us know. Let's hope it's not the Stage Center site that teaches you that lesson. And stop making broad, vague posts about humility and whatnot. You're alienating people who could be your allies on other issues. You're more polarizing than I have ever been at times, and I would only have done that in the post over issues that I felt mattered. This does not because it's written on the wall, the damn thing is coming down...

Much of the empty lots that are now used as parking lots all over the country used to have buildings sitting on them and were torn down for speculative demolition including many in OKC. Most of us saw it happen with our very own eyes bin large part because of the Pei Plan. NYC style demo/build doesn't happen in his part of the country for the most part, too cheap to build outside of the CBD for companies/developers who are indifferent about being located downtown. Too many of us have seen empty lots that were torn down for development sitting vacant for almost 40 years, it's kind of hard to blame us if we are a bit apprehensive about the "tear it down and they will come" mentality regarding the Stage Center property.

Maybe we should just let OCURA handle it, then maybe a proven developer like Hogan can give us a nice two story EIFS building with lots of needed parking on it.....:rolleyes:

We'd be extremely lucky if it were two stories.

We'd be extremely lucky if it were two stories.

This.

Oh, I forgot to mention EIFS, too

The empty lot phenomenon is nothing exclusive to OKC either, when I worked in Dallas in 91-93 I could look out of our 27th floor window and see surface parking lots all over the place, many of them still had floor tile in place from where the previous structures sat. In Texas Architect magazine back then there was an article about all the proposals that were lost in the 80's oil bust and they had many pictures of the empty lots with what was proposed there and what was torn down to make way for those failed proposals. At that time the article stated that 40% of the Dallas CBD was surface parking lots. There are empty lots (most with surface parking, some just grass lots) all over LoDo near my office in Downtown Denver. Most of the new buildings in Downtown Austin were built on empty lots but there are still many that remain and according to some long time residents that I know down there some of those lots were surface parking lots for over 20 years.

The celebrated architect of this building has died. John M. Johansen 1916-2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/27/arts/design/john-m-johansen-last-of-harvard-five-architects-dies-at-96.html

Wow. RIP. A life well lived. Should SC be torn down, I'm glad to know that he'll be spared witnessing the deed, though his final quote in that story adds an interesting and insightful perspective on the matter at hand.

Wow, indeed. That last statement shows some real depth--the kind that seems to only come from a late-in-life perspective of one's work. What a poignant reminder that nothing (and no one) lasts forever; better to enjoy the work itself than to depend upon the enduring of it in order to sense personal meaning.

I found it interesting that the Stage Center was the only one of his projects mentioned in the article as being liable to immediate critique.

RIP. At least I've gotten to see the Stage Center up close. Today I got to see some photos of great buildings we foolishly destroyed here in OKC in the name of progress. I'm sorry the Stage Center will likely enter the pantheon of regret as well.

RIP.. and this might be kinda messed up to say but maybe this is sign of good things to come. IDK Don't hate me for saying that though.

Mummers-Theater (http://www.johnmjohansen.com/Mummers-Theater.html)

Also...

http://www.johnmjohansen.com/

This was posted today on the Save the Stage Center Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-the-Stage-Center-Mummers-Theater-of-Oklahoma-City/147513341996757):




Here is the latest on the efforts to Save Stage Center:
The owner of the building, the Oklahoma City Community Foundation rejected the two proposals put forth in an attempt to save the building. They have put the building up for sale and the current broker is Mark Beffort with Grubb & Ellis (405.840.1500).

A National Register Nomination has been prepared on the property. The Historic Preservation Commission passed it 8 to 1. It was sent to the City Council and Councilwoman Meg Salyer requested that it be deferred indefinitely. This makes it difficult for review at the state level so instead of hearing it in October, the State Historic Preservation Review Committee tabled it until their January meeting. It would be helpful for the community to urge their City Council Members to hear the nomination and vote on it. It would also be helpful for letters to be sent to the State Historic Preservation Review Committee (by way of Dr. Bob Blackburn and Melvena Heisch) urging them to take action on the nomination. The owner, the Oklahoma City Community Foundation, filed a formal objecting to the listing with the State Historic Preservation Officer which means the building will not be listed without the owner's consent. However, the Keeper of the National Register can still make a formal determination, which would be helpful because the new owner would not have to do all the work if they want to save the building and if they want to undertake a certified rehabilitation project.

Heh Pete I had a feeling someone would spot this. :)

This was posted today on the Save the Stage Center Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-the-Stage-Center-Mummers-Theater-of-Oklahoma-City/147513341996757):




Here is the latest on the efforts to Save Stage Center:
The owner of the building, the Oklahoma City Community Foundation rejected the two proposals put forth in an attempt to save the building. They have put the building up for sale and the current broker is Mark Beffort with Grubb & Ellis (405.840.1500).

A National Register Nomination has been prepared on the property. The Historic Preservation Commission passed it 8 to 1. It was sent to the City Council and Councilwoman Meg Salyer requested that it be deferred indefinitely. This makes it difficult for review at the state level so instead of hearing it in October, the State Historic Preservation Review Committee tabled it until their January meeting. It would be helpful for the community to urge their City Council Members to hear the nomination and vote on it. It would also be helpful for letters to be sent to the State Historic Preservation Review Committee (by way of Dr. Bob Blackburn and Melvena Heisch) urging them to take action on the nomination. The owner, the Oklahoma City Community Foundation, filed a formal objecting to the listing with the State Historic Preservation Officer which means the building will not be listed without the owner's consent. However, the Keeper of the National Register can still make a formal determination, which would be helpful because the new owner would not have to do all the work if they want to save the building and if they want to undertake a certified rehabilitation project.

This is where the new owner will want to replace the SC with a new tower.

This leads me to believe that this site will be the first site developed from one of the new prospects, just due to Mark Beffort's knowledge of the situation.

A thread about Chase Tower got me thinking.

There is a certain beauty in a purely functional structure. If you look at it and can identify in your mind why it is built the way it is, you can accept and appreciate it. The OG&E and BOk buildings downtown are certainly not pretty, but they are functional. If I had the money to build a tower downtown, I certainly wouldn't pick a design like either of those, but they aren't eyesores either. It's the same kind of functionality like overhead power lines, big electrical and air conditioning units on rooftops, or railroad tracks. None of those things are attractive, but they serve a purpose and we just accept them because they work.

Stage Center lacks this functionality. It doesn't work. It's not a very good theater, it doesn't serve its purpose.

That's the problem. It was daring artwork for its day, very controversial. That in and of itself is not bad. But not every daring piece of art succeeds or stands the test of time. Stage Center would be a lot more relevant if you could still use the thing as a theater. Since you can't, it exists solely for its physical appearance.

Here's an article/obituary of John Johansen in the Architect magazine daily email.

Architect - Remembering John Johansen, the last of the Harvard Five Architects (http://www.architectmagazine.com/architects/johansen-obit.aspx)

Realtor: Potential buyers lined up for Stage Center | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2013/02/25/selling-stage-center-realtor-says-potential-buyers-lined-up-for-historic-property-real-estate/)

I can't access the link (no account), could someone sum up what it says for lozers like me?

Realtor: Potential buyers lined up for Stage Center | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2013/02/25/selling-stage-center-realtor-says-potential-buyers-lined-up-for-historic-property-real-estate/)

Looks like Molly Fleming is the new Brianna Bailey, Molly just might be the one to break the Stage Center development story.

Looks like Molly Fleming is the new Brianna Bailey, Molly just might be the one to break the Stage Center development story.

Dang it! Now I really wanna read it! :(

Realtor: Potential buyers lined up for Stage Center


By Molly M. Fleming
The Journal Record
Posted: 04:48 PM Monday, February 25, 2013






OKLAHOMA CITY – It’s not every day that the Central Oklahoma Chapter of the American Institute of Architects takes a stance on saving a building.

But for the Stage Center at 400 W. Sheridan Ave. in downtown Oklahoma City, the chapter has voiced its opinion that it would like to keep the building intact.

“There just seems like something could be used for the building,” said Melissa Hunt, the chapter’s executive director. “We came out and really worked with the (Oklahoma City) Community Foundation because we had so many members that said, ‘We can’t let this building go.’ We feel like it’s pretty important.”

According to the building’s Realtor, Mark Beffort, keeping the building intact may be a possibility.

“We’ve had one group look at it that wants to reuse the facility, while others are looking at developing the site,” said Mark Beffort with Grubb and Ellis.

He said he has shown the property to more than a dozen interested parties, and that number has been narrowed to between three and five.

“We do have an interested party that has indicated interest in keeping the existing structure,” he said. “But they don’t know if they would. We want what’s in the interest of the city, but we’re making sure whoever buys the site is able to execute their plan.”

The buyer of the property could be named by the middle of April, Beffort said.

“We are not under contract with anyone yet,” he said.

The purchaser of the property will be named based on three criteria: the price offered, the buyers’ capability to execute their plan, and the ultimate use of the structure.

Stage Center is owned by the Oklahoma City Community Foundation. There is no price on it.

Hunt said the purchaser will get a building that is in decent shape, considering the 2010 flood. However, the building does not have heat or air conditioning, which is an additional expense the new owner would have to resolve.

“The upper floors were not flooded,” Hunt said. “It’s been empty since 2010 and it’s in remarkably good shape. Where it flooded in 2010 – all of that has been cleaned up.”

At one time, the building was being considered for the National Register of Historic Places, but that proposal was put on hold when the Oklahoma City Community Foundation filed a formal objection to the listing.

Hunt said that despite the foundation’s objection, the new owner could still put the building on the register if they desired.

The Stage Center, originally called Mummers Theater, is considered historic by architectural groups because it was designed by John M. Johansen in 1970. Johansen was a student of Walter Gropius and Frank Lloyd Wright. The building received the American Institute of Architects National Honor Award in 1972. That same year, it was placed in the permanent building model collection at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.

Thank you Gary.

Glad to help. :)

Molly Fleming has a ways to go. I don't think Beffort appreciates being referred to as a "Realtor."

The fight is over, The Oklahoma City Community Foundation has already requested RFP's for redevelopment of the Stage Center a couple years ago with no success. Sources stated that it would cost $30 million dollars to rehabilitate the facility just for proper use, not including money on top of that for redevelopment. They are now taking the next step and selling the property. It would be nice if they were more transparent and we could see the different proposals, but that's not going to happen. This site will be sold, demolished, and replaced with a shiny new office tower.

The 45 days that Steve mentioned puts us near the "middle of April" and also well past the decision for the future of SandRidge.

The 45 days that Steve mentioned puts us near the "middle of April" and also well past the decision for the future of SandRidge.

not past when a sandridge sale would take place ..

I don't think the future of Sandridge would have an effect on what is to become of Stage Center. Steve mentioned in his last chat that the Sandridge and Chesapeake situations might have an effect on future towers outside of the one proposed for the Stage Center.

There you have it, shoring up the "Mystery Tower" rumors of the most likely next location for a tower will be Stage Center. They're doing all the PR necessary for a pending announcement, aka damage control.

We want what’s in the interest of the city, but we’re making sure whoever buys the site is able to execute their plan.

This is really what's important at this point, imo. I just hope that demolition crews don't show up without construction crews from the redevelopment group sitting on the curb ready to start the minute the last piece of scrap is removed. With all the empty space in this town, it would really suck for the net result of tearing down stage center to be just another empty lot right in the middle of the core.

This is really what's important at this point, imo. I just hope that demolition crews don't show up without construction crews from the redevelopment group sitting on the curb ready to start the minute the last piece of scrap is removed. With all the empty space in this town, it would really suck for the net result of tearing down stage center to be just another empty lot right in the middle of the core.

Has anyone looked at relocating the stage center to somewhere else in the city? Not sure it would even be possible but it seems odd that it hasn't been mentioned.

I like the idea of a mixed use high rise incorporating office and residential, maybe a little street level retail, and underground parking. The site has killer views of downtown and the Myriad Gardens, and its location at the SW edge of the CBD gives it less congested ingress/egress. Short walks to the Myriad Gardens, Civic Center and Museum.

"Moving" is not possible. Though some of the more visual elements are metal and seemingly detachable, the bulk of the building is a concrete structure. "Moving" would essentially mean building a replica, which is frowned upon by HP standards. The building would have no history; it would only be a replica of a significant building, similar to how there are exact replicas of the Alamo but only one Alamo. It would have no real value.

The only acceptable outcomes for Stage Center are:


The building is adequately maintained until a well-organized group appears with a rock-solid plan for adaptive re-use and long-term funding, or...
A project of SIGNIFICANT, DEMONSTRABLE higher and better use appears -- a well-done high rise corporate headquarters could qualify, IMO -- with again a rock-solid plan, full funding, and ready to turn dirt immediately after demolition.

I would accept either, but would be far more enthusiastic about the former. It's not like empty lots for new buildings are in short supply downtown.

I'm just thankful that (to date) the building has not been torn down on spec. All reasonable options still exist. Historically that has been a rare approach to OKC architecture.

"Moving" is not possible. Though some of the more visual elements are metal and seemingly detachable, the bulk of the building is a concrete structure. "Moving" would essentially mean building a replica, which is frowned upon by HP standards. The building would have no history; it would only be a replica of a significant building, similar to how there are exact replicas of the Alamo but only one Alamo. It would have no real value.


The one big difference - nothing historic happened AT the Stage Center. It is only considered to be of interest because of who designed it. A new building constructed from the same plans wouldn't change who designed it. Also, I don't think historic replication applies to brutalism, unless someone finds a way to fake concrete walls. I can fully understand faking an arch or column, but a concrete wall? They are still made the same way today they were made in 1970.

JTF is right here.

Saying that it would be silly to rebuild Stage Center elsewhere (with the same basic plans as Johansen made) is akin to saying it would be silly to perform Beethoven's 9th anywhere else other than Vienna.

The architecture and functionality is the only thing that matters RE stage center (maybe...MAYBE Oklahoma City as a location). That architecture and functionality are perfectly replicable elsewhere in the city...How about C2S?

Has anyone looked at relocating the stage center to somewhere else in the city? Not sure it would even be possible but it seems odd that it hasn't been mentioned.

I've mentioned this numerous times to take a section of it, enough to be a reminder of what it was, and put it on one of the corners of the core to shore park and call it art. That couldn't be too expensive, especially if it did not have to be functional, other than some accent lighting.

Rebuilding elseware might even increase its mistique. How many buildings get built twice? I can only think of St Mark's Campanile in Venice that collapsed in 1902 was rebuilt in 1912.

Rebuilding elseware might even increase its mistique. How many buildings get built twice? I can only think of St Mark's Campanile in Venice that collapsed in 1902 was rebuilt in 1912.

The building has a number of faults that would call into question the reasoning behind spending the money to recreate it. It would be a very expensive piece of public art and homage to the architect. I don't think anyone who has been to St. Mark's would compare it.

The building has a number of faults that would call into question the reasoning behind spending the money to recreate it. It would be a very expensive piece of public art and homage to the architect. I don't think anyone who has been to St. Mark's would compare it.

Oh it can't be THAT expensive...and I would think in a rebuild they would take the blueprints and re-engineer it so that the place doesn't so easily flood.

And it doesn't have to just be public art...it could still be a viable facility.

I'm sorry, but rebuilding it elsewhere is just silly. The building has perpetually struggled in its intended purpose. If you want to build a new performing arts center, do it by all means, but do it because you want a performing arts center and then build a state-of-the-art building. Stage Center is NOT state-of-the-art in any way. The single thing that makes that building special is the fact that it was so groundbreaking when originally built. THAT is its legacy. An imitation would only be an imitation of an important building that in hindsight has been difficult to purpose. There would be no point, other than to make a few people feel less guilty about tearing down an architectural gem. It either survives in its current location or is lost. There is no in-between that makes any sense whatsoever.

I'm sorry, but rebuilding it elsewhere is just silly. The building has perpetually struggled in its intended purpose. If you want to build a new performing arts center, do it by all means, but do it because you want a performing arts center and then build a state-of-the-art building. Stage Center is NOT state-of-the-art in any way. The single thing that makes that building special is the fact that it was so groundbreaking when originally built. THAT is its legacy. An imitation would only be an imitation of an important building that in hindsight has been difficult to purpose. There would be no point, other than to make a few people feel less guilty about tearing down an architectural gem. It either survives in its current location or is lost. There is no in-between that makes any sense whatsoever.

Like I said...leave the 9th in Vienna...

Preferably in the 1800s

Question about the site: is it just Stage Center or is it comprised of Stage Center and all the buildings to the south of Stage Center?

Also, how will the redevelopment affect the Arts Festival?

Question about the site: is it just Stage Center or is it comprised of Stage Center and all the buildings to the south of Stage Center?

Also, how will the redevelopment affect the Arts Festival?

The property is just the block the SC is located on. Wouldn't prevent a buyer from approaching the block to the south though with an offer.

Hopefully the development is pedestrian friendly on all sides, and perhaps the Arts Festival could remain where it's at, albeit with some rearranging.

I hope the development is called Stage Center. Would be a tremendous tip of the hat, and the Stage Center could at least live on in spirit/name.

I hope the development is called Stage Center. Would be a tremendous tip of the hat, and the Stage Center could at least live on in spirit/name.

I love this idea. Well done, sir.

Like I said...leave the 9th in Vienna...
Please. This is an absolutely ridiculous apples-and-oranges comparison. Performed music is ethereal. We're talking about a physical object here. A more apt comparison would be to say it would be OK to burn Beethoven's original manuscripts for the 9th because a quality document forger could just knock out a precise new copy of them if we wanted replacements. Or heck, we could put it on modern paper and actually IMPROVE upon the originals. We know all of the notes, right? No, the manuscripts themselves have value that copies will never have. The same with paintings. There are master art forgers who have fooled experts; who can replicate a Picasso or a Degas down to the stroke. Does that mean the copy is worth as much as the original? It looks exactly the same. It's just as beautiful; it's an exact copy. But OF COURSE it's not worth as much.

And no, I'm not comparing John Johansen to Beethoven or Picasso per se. Substitute Woody Guthrie, Bob Dylan or Andy Warhol if you prefer.

If it were acceptable to knock off architectural gems to the exact detail, then why don't we build a replica of Robie House or Taliesin West and cash in on all of the tourists who would otherwise be flocking to Chicago or Scottsdale? Maybe an exact replica of Fallingwater somewhere in SE Oklahoma? How about an imitation Guggenheim in downtown OKC with stroke-for-stroke art forgeries hanging on the wall? We'd be rich!

Architecture -- SIGNIFICANT architecture that is -- speaks to a specific time, place and people. Simply building a copy of it doesn't make the new building special in any way; in fact it belies an underlying cheapness and lack of creativity. Building a replica Stage Center somewhere would only serve to highlight the loss of the real building in a failed, vain attempt to make ourselves feel (and appear to outsiders) less like knuckle draggers.

Like I have said many times, I can personally see reasonable scenarios for tearing down SC. But ONLY if it is replaced with higher and better use. "Rebuild it somewhere else" is merely a lazy way to get out of having to make a values judgment.