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.

There is a reason this style never continued.

There is a reason this style never continued.
Which is another great reason re-building it somewhere else would be folly. If you're going to build another performing arts center somewhere it would be silly not to build a modern (as in current design standards and technology) building, and give the new place the greatest chance for success. Stage Center is either worth saving in its current location or its not. I can go either way, but if replaced it had better be replaced by a building of greater value.

Which is another great reason re-building it somewhere else would be folly. If you're going to build another performing arts center somewhere it would be silly not to build a modern (as in current design standards and technology) building, and give the new place the greatest chance for success. Stage Center is either worth saving in its current location or its not. I can go either way, but if replaced it had better be replaced by a building of greater value.

I'm fine with this. We have enough empty land in the downtown area. No need for more of it. If you're going to build something cheap and crappy, build it on one of the many empty places we already have. Even if there's only a 1% chance of someone coming in and renovating Stage Center, that's 1% more than we'll have if you tear it down to build a Pizza Hut.

Of course, to me even something on the scale of Oklahoma Tower would be a "building of greater value" than Stage Center right now. It's important because of who made it, but the actual design is... yeah. Don't compare Johansen to Beethoven, he wasn't anywhere near that level. It would be more like finding an original print of a George Lucas movie, and then realizing it's Howard the Duck. Valuable, but not good.

If you re-read my post I went back in before you posted and qualified the Beethoven comparison and said if you'd prefer, think of it more in Woody Guthrie or Andy Warhol terms. I'm not the one who brought up Beethoven anyway.

If you re-read my post I went back in before you posted and qualified the Beethoven comparison and said if you'd prefer, think of it more in Woody Guthrie or Andy Warhol terms. I'm not the one who brought up Beethoven anyway.

Yeah that's fine. I know the architect was significant, but the entire Frank Lloyd Wright style just doesn't do it for me. It's like asking me to appreciate English food. "Yes, I'm sure this is very fine rat intestine pie. Now excuse me."

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

Or London Bridge in London....

Yeah that's fine. I know the architect was significant, but the entire Frank Lloyd Wright style just doesn't do it for me. It's like asking me to appreciate English food. "Yes, I'm sure this is very fine rat intestine pie. Now excuse me."

Dead on.

Yeah that's fine. I know the architect was significant, but the entire Frank Lloyd Wright style just doesn't do it for me. It's like asking me to appreciate English food. "Yes, I'm sure this is very fine rat intestine pie. Now excuse me."

But rat intestine pie is delicious. You really should give it a try sometime.

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.

I vote for the latter.

I vote for the latter.

+1. I'm sorry, but I've always thought it was an ugly building. I'd take a well-built 5 story mixed-use development with ground floor retail over the current Stage Center any day. I support and empathize with a lot of historic preservation movements, but I just don't get it for this building.

+1. I'm sorry, but I've always thought it was an ugly building. I'd take a well-built 5 story mixed-use development with ground floor retail over the current Stage Center any day. I support and empathize with a lot of historic preservation movements, but I just don't get it for this building.

If we're wanting here, I want a 56 floor 958 ft monster.

if we're wanting here, i want a 56 floor 958 ft monster.like

If we're wanting here, I want a 56 floor 958 ft monster.

I definitely wouldn't be disappointed if that happened, but would personally rather see something in the 600-700 ft range to fill in the skyline void between the height of the Devon Tower and the rest of the buildings downtown.

I definitely wouldn't be disappointed if that happened, but would personally rather see something in the 600-700 ft range to fill in the skyline void between the height of the Devon Tower and the rest of the buildings downtown.

I agree, but you won't hear me whining if they do try & put up a 958 ft beast.

The one big difference - nothing historic happened AT the Stage Center.

Not true, Kerry, I attended some of the early Mummer's productions there. That alone makes it historic. LOL

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 would be more in favor of incorporating the original Mummers name in any new development.

Not true, Kerry, I attended some of the early Mummer's productions there. That alone makes it historic. LOL

Oh yes, I now remember that being mentioned on the unauthorized historic preservation application. :)

The one big difference - nothing historic happened AT the Stage Center. It is only considered to be of interest because of who designed it.

Well, isn't design and architectural reference the reason most things are preserved? I mean, I doubt something universally considered historic happened at every house in Heritage Hills, Mesta Park, or Crown Heights. They are preserved for their defining architectural characteristics and their historical relevance to the city's development, not because of what actually happened in them. Besides, Stage Center did receive a national design award, which, around here, IS historic.

Doesn't matter though. The India Temple had it all in terms of architectural significance, as a historical reference point and as a real host to historic events. We still gave it the finger. In the end, Oklahoma City is just very apathetic to its own history (maybe because there are so few references to its past left, especially relative to most markets). But I do think the "it can't be historical if it's here" mindset will begin to erode with the next generation. They seem to have more pride and interest in the city than my generation has and certainly more than the one before mine.

Besides, Stage Center did receive a prestigious national design award, which, around here, IS historic.

I'm not sure how prestigious it is. They give it out every year whether there is a worthy project or not. The Boston City Hall won the same award and it is a steaming pile of crap. Have you seen the other buildings they 'award'. I am convinced the give this award to architects they feel sorry for.

I'm not sure how prestigious it is. They give it out every year whether there is a worthy project or not. The Boston City Hall won the same award and it is a steaming pile of crap. Have you seen the other buildings they 'award'. I am convinced the give this award to architects they feel sorry for.

Well, I don't know anything about architecture awards, so I will remove the offending word for you. Either way. I don't think it would matter around here if it was a prestigious award or not.

Well, isn't design and architectural reference the reason most things are preserved? I mean, I doubt something universally considered historic happened at every house in Heritage Hills, Mesta Park, or Crown Heights. They are preserved for their defining architectural characteristics and their historical relevance to the city's development, not because of what actually happened in them. Besides, Stage Center did receive a national design award, which, around here, IS historic.

Flexible design has save a lot of buildings, a major issue with stage center, especially if it is paired with cheaper acquisition costs than newer structures. Most of the floor space is narrow concrete terraces that slope up near a 45% pitch that has limited use for anything that does not need stadium seating.

For some reason, the first thing I thought of when I saw this article was the Stage Center. I suspect they will have about the same amount of success in preservation efforts.

Group fights to save JFK airport?s old Pan Am terminal | The Lookout - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/group-fights-save-jfk-airport-old-pan-am-223909140--finance.html?pt=BureoF2GVB/)

Or London Bridge in London....

:)

Well, isn't design and architectural reference the reason most things are preserved? I mean, I doubt something universally considered historic happened at every house in Heritage Hills, Mesta Park, or Crown Heights. They are preserved for their defining architectural characteristics and their historical relevance to the city's development, not because of what actually happened in them. Besides, Stage Center did receive a national design award, which, around here, IS historic.

Doesn't matter though. The India Temple had it all in terms of architectural significance, as a historical reference point and as a real host to historic events. We still gave it the finger. In the end, Oklahoma City is just very apathetic to its own history (maybe because there are so few references to its past left, especially relative to most markets). But I do think the "it can't be historical if it's here" mindset will begin to erode with the next generation. They seem to have more pride and interest in the city than my generation has and certainly more than the one before mine.

Thank you, You said exaclty what I was thinking. I love this building, it is a gem and part of Oklahoma City's achitectual history. I will miss seeing it if it is gone. It is a peice of art itself and I enjoy how it looks. I'm sure something could be thought of for it's use. I would love to go inside of it. I never have had that opportunuty.

I would love to go inside of it. I never have had that opportunuty.

I mentioned this in an earlier post, but, to me, I think the inside is its strength. I have had the opportunity to go there both for performances in its theaters and for art shows spanning the whole facility. It's layout is one that begs to be explored and rarely do you see modest theater facilities that, just by design, create a sense of interaction and engagement. It is interesting, because I think people's disdain for it stems largely from its brutalist qualities, which I get as I am not a big fan of the movement. But, I think the real achievement of the building from a design perspective is how took cold concrete and steel and created a very lively and inviting building that gives visitors an immediate sense of discovery the minute they walk in. I have been in many theaters where the outside is cool and the inside is very blank and academic. I have also been in a lot that just ooze historic majestic design. However, I have never been in one where I felt like the building itself was part of the journey. Stage Center did that, imo. And, if nothing else, I can definitely say I have never been in another theater complex like it and there really isn't anything else in Oklahoma that I can say that about.

I mentioned this in an earlier post, but, to me, I think the inside is its strength. I have had the opportunity to go there both for performances in its theaters and for art shows spanning the whole facility. It's layout is one that begs to be explored and rarely do you see modest theater facilities that, just by design, create a sense of interaction and engagement. It is interesting, because I think people's disdain for it stems largely from its brutalist qualities, which I get as I am not a big fan of the movement. But, I think the real achievement of the building from a design perspective is how took cold concrete and steel and created a very lively and inviting building that gives visitors an immediate sense of discovery the minute they walk in. I have been in many theaters where the outside is cool and the inside is very blank and academic. I have also been in a lot that just ooze historic majestic design. However, I have never been in one where I felt like the building itself was part of the journey. Stage Center did that, imo. And, if nothing else, I can definitely say I have never been in another theater complex like it and there really isn't anything else in Oklahoma that I can say that about.

Well said! Architecturally it was not designed as a 'brutalist' building, it is a program building which expressed itself in a brutalist manner. Architectual programing is the visual linking of related spaces in a design portfolio. The architect took the leap of creating a space that literally brought this visual tool to life. This is the very reason the interior is such a invigorating space. The function striped of its exterior ornaments, but maximizing the interior relationships. The exterior look was balanced, but secondary to how the spaces worked togather. A brilliant building. Alas, like Frank Loyd Wright, some practical matters were overlooked (a lot of his buildings are suffering from poor material design). Fortuneatly, Mr. Wrights buildings have supporters who are saving them for their virtues, not their faults. Sadly, Stage Center has 'Okies'.... we shall see what that means.

I mentioned this in an earlier post, but, to me, I think the inside is its strength. I have had the opportunity to go there both for performances in its theaters and for art shows spanning the whole facility. It's layout is one that begs to be explored and rarely do you see modest theater facilities that, just by design, create a sense of interaction and engagement. It is interesting, because I think people's disdain for it stems largely from its brutalist qualities, which I get as I am not a big fan of the movement. But, I think the real achievement of the building from a design perspective is how took cold concrete and steel and created a very lively and inviting building that gives visitors an immediate sense of discovery the minute they walk in. I have been in many theaters where the outside is cool and the inside is very blank and academic. I have also been in a lot that just ooze historic majestic design. However, I have never been in one where I felt like the building itself was part of the journey. Stage Center did that, imo. And, if nothing else, I can definitely say I have never been in another theater complex like it and there really isn't anything else in Oklahoma that I can say that about.

I found the inside almost as cold and brutal as the outside

so did i.

In 1971, Time magazine critic Robert Hughes praised it as “an exquisitely human building in its scale, organization, and intriguing unpredictabilities.”

Saving Johansen’s Stage Center | News | Architectural Record (http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/02/Johansen-Theater.asp)

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/02/images/Johansen-Theater/Johansen-Theater-14.jpg

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/02/images/Johansen-Theater/Johansen-Theater-15.jpg

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/02/images/Johansen-Theater/Johansen-Theater-22.jpg

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/02/images/Johansen-Theater/Johansen-Theater-20.jpg

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/02/images/Johansen-Theater/Johansen-Theater-21.jpg

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/02/images/Johansen-Theater/Johansen-Theater-16.jpg

Well, it's too darned bad the outside has to be so ugly!

Well, it's too darned bad the outside has to be so ugly!

And even that is a matter of taste. Everyone in my family (small sample, I realize) loves the exterior. My daughter, visiting from San Francisco, recently commented on how much character it adds to our otherwise bland downtown.

And even that is a matter of taste. Everyone in my family (small sample, I realize) loves the exterior. My daughter, visiting from San Francisco, recently commented on how much character it adds to our otherwise bland downtown.

Quite right! I find it one of the few attractive buildings downtown. Many are 'acceptable' some unique, but few are as intresting. I like the Devon tower - but would hate to see a city filled with just this one style of building. Boxes are often boring - not to say many are downright ugly. Since Oklahoma is home ground to the spatial grid (we may not have invented - but adapted as religion) boxes will dominate.
This is somewhat pragmatic, but without an occasional 'wow' it would be a Soviet Block. With the addition of the Library, Crystal Bridge, and Devon complex this area was becoming architecturally interesting - even a destination in itself. With the removal of SC and the addition of another 'block' (in order to 'maximize' the space) ... going back to boring. The only other interesting complex being built in OKC was the AICC - but we can see how thats going. And some of you wonder why there is nothing interesting in OKC .... really? Thank goodness for the boathouse district.

TalanCB - do you ever walk around downtown? Also, Stage Center is the definition of Soviet style architecture.

Why the assumption that whatever buildings go onto the SC site, it will be bland and too similar to Devon?

Until there are renderings of what could come, there is no argument that SC is more architecturally unique than something that does not yet exist in the public eye.

And even that is a matter of taste. Everyone in my family (small sample, I realize) loves the exterior. My daughter, visiting from San Francisco, recently commented on how much character it adds to our otherwise bland downtown.

+1

TalanCB - do you ever walk around downtown? Also, Stage Center is the definition of Soviet style architecture.

How so? What is the definition of Soviet Style architecture?

The only similarity I really see if the use of some exposed concrete. It seems way more whimsical and inventive that anything on this page:

https://www.google.com/search?q=soviet+style+architecture&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=zkz&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=ZMA4UaOnMsPsyQG-m4GYBg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=886

If we were talking about the capitol complex or Sandridge then I'd see it, but to say that this is the "definition" of soviet style architecture seems like a reach.

But I think Betts point is certainly valid. Whatever one thinks of it, it is a true one-of-a-kind in a city devoid of uniqueness. I'm not saying that there aren't good pieces downtown, but this is the only thing that is really unfamiliar downtown. I think that's what scares people. People are more comfortable with familiarity and I think the inferiority complex that has prevailed here for so long becomes evident in the discussion of Stage Center. More often than not, we only want what we have seen elsewhere. We look at similarity as validation, instead of embracing our unique elements.

Honestly, it really wouldn't be that big of a deal if it wasn't so unique. The fact that our architectural inventory has so little uniqueness to it, that is anything that makes anyone go "well, now that's different", makes the impact of the loss of this structure even more significant. The interesting thing is that driving east down Sheridan my eyes are drawn more to Stage Center and the Myriad Gardens than the Devon Complex. Mainly because those things feel like Oklahoma City, while Devon's front yard, while brand new and very impressive, still feels very familiar. A lot of major markets have several complexes with Devon's approach with a few unique pieces thrown in. We have one Devon tower and one unqiue piece downtown. We may get another Devon like power complex, but at the cost of our one unique structure. The net result is really just more homogeneity, and nothing sounds more Soviet than that, imo.

I want to see this place repurposed rather than razed. I think it'd be a great location for a museum or gallery of some sort, or maybe even retail. I don't understand why people hate it so much. I think it's distinctive and visually interesting. We need more architecture like that rather than the same boring vanilla crap you find on every corner around here. Homogeneity is one of the reasons people think Oklahoma is boring, and I hate to say it, but those people kinda have a point.

Though I don't disagree, at this point you'd probably have greater success rolling a snowball down a mile stretch of Sheridan at noon on a clear August day than you'd have of preserving SC. A pity really, but I've already bid my fare thee well to SC.

Well, if the the mystery tower project does end up utilizing all space between Sheridan and Reno, then there will be plenty of room for them to build a skyscraper and accessory buildings, as well as renovating and re-purposing the Stage Center as part of a new front lawn that will rival Devon's.

Everybody wins and gets candy.

;P

I want to see this place repurposed rather than razed. I think it'd be a great location for a museum or gallery of some sort, or maybe even retail. I don't understand why people hate it so much. I think it's distinctive and visually interesting. We need more architecture like that rather than the same boring vanilla crap you find on every corner around here. Homogeneity is one of the reasons people think Oklahoma is boring, and I hate to say it, but those people kinda have a point.

As Just the Facts puts it, it doesn't interact with the street wall and never will unless its replaced because OKCers don't see it for what you do.

I wish there was a way to move it to MBG or Central Park and turn it into a world class Children's Museum and/or Exhibit space. But I agree with most urbanists that the space should be developed to better serve the urban setting.

Too bad developers aren't looking to fill existing space in the CBD. ...

I honestly wouldn't mind it -- other than a nice, solid, overhaul of a renovation -- if it were out in the suburbs or in a setting like the new Central Park. It just doesn't belong downtown & I would take a skyscraper of any height over what's there now any day. There's just not much value placed on it -- outside of a small group -- compared to what's supposedly being worked on as its replacement.

TalanCB - do you ever walk around downtown? Also, Stage Center is the definition of Soviet style architecture.

Uh, no. It's not, Kerry

Whatever replaces the Stage Center, I just hope they restore the street grid there. Poor ole California Avenue has been torn out for 9 blocks straight.

The interior has some amazing elements

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/02/images/Johansen-Theater/Johansen-Theater-15.jpg

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/02/images/Johansen-Theater/Johansen-Theater-20.jpg

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/02/images/Johansen-Theater/Johansen-Theater-23.jpg

http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/02/images/Johansen-Theater/Johansen-Theater-21.jpg

Whatever replaces the Stage Center, I just hope they restore the street grid there. Poor ole California Avenue has been torn out for 9 blocks straight.

^This. The terminal view of California Ave should be MBG, not the operational side of a highrise building.

TalanCB - do you ever walk around downtown? Also, Stage Center is the definition of Soviet style architecture.
Uh, no. It's not, Kerry

Fine, it is Soviet brutalism architecture with some color thrown in so some Americans will buy into the idea of the 'industrial man'.

Fine, it is Soviet brutalism architecture with some color thrown in so some Americans will buy into the idea of the 'industrial man'.

haha... ok, i haven't laughed that hard in awhile... thank you! and i agree

I honestly wouldn't mind it -- other than a nice, solid, overhaul of a renovation -- if it were out in the suburbs or in a setting like the new Central Park. It just doesn't belong downtown & I would take a skyscraper of any height over what's there now any day. There's just not much value placed on it -- outside of a small group -- compared to what's supposedly being worked on as its replacement.

This place belongs in downtown precisely because it is so different from what passes for Oklahoma architecture. Just as downtown is a place to see people of different backgrounds and modes (work, play, living, visiting), you should expect to see varied architecture downtown as well. Image-wise, it's necessary. You don't want visitors to have to drive around town for hours to see something different. I love skyscrapers and want to see more of them in downtown OKC, but as a resident or visitor, I'd rather see Stage Center than Corporate Tower or Oklahoma Tower.

Fine, it is Soviet brutalism architecture with some color thrown in so some Americans will buy into the idea of the 'industrial man'.

Thanks for (re)defining it. If you accept that, then it's even cooler that Oklahoma City had a building that vastly improved on a sterile form of design. Quite an accomplishment.

Can we also scrape that which is actually more true to the movement, starting with sandridge and the Capitol complex? We could use the space.

(Equally snarky retort in 3... 2...)

Thanks for (re)defining it. If you accept that, then it's even cooler that Oklahoma City had a building that vastly improved on a sterile form of design. Quite an accomplishment.

Can we also scrape that which is actually more true to the movement, starting with sandridge and the Capitol complex? We could use the space.

(Equally snarky retort in 3... 2...)


Sandridge... i'm right on board... but the Capitol Complex... i must disagree on this one... This is more of an homage to classic greek architecture, because they are all in ruins as well

Sandridge... i'm right on board... but the Capitol Complex... i must disagree on this one... This is more of an homage to classic greek architecture, because they are all in ruins as well

Until they put a dome on it - then it became Roman.

Sandridge... i'm right on board... but the Capitol Complex... i must disagree on this one... This is more of an homage to classic greek architecture, because they are all in ruins as well

Classic Hellenic Greek temples are typified by step pediments forming stairs on all sides with columns (type in Greek temple under Google Image). Roman (with or without dome) have front oriented steps with columns on the front - sometimes on the sides. (type in Roman Temple under Google Image). While the capital does have clear elements of Hellenistic details (a smiliar, but different style from Hellenic) - as are all such buildings it would be better called 'classic' in inspiration - which includes Hellenic, Hellenistic, and Roman (which includes Etruscan, Hellenic, Hellenistic, Egyptian). Hard to find 'pure' Greek inspired buildings - the copy of the Parthenon in Nashville perhaps.

Classic Hellenic Greek temples are typified by step pediments forming stairs on all sides with columns (type in Greek temple under Google Image). Roman (with or without dome) have front oriented steps with columns on the front - sometimes on the sides. (type in Roman Temple under Google Image). While the capital does have clear elements of Hellenistic details (a smiliar, but different style from Hellenic) - as are all such buildings it would be better called 'classic' in inspiration - which includes Hellenic, Hellenistic, and Roman (which includes Etruscan, Hellenic, Hellenistic, Egyptian). Hard to find 'pure' Greek inspired buildings - the copy of the Parthenon in Nashville perhaps.

Off-course, the Lincoln Memorial! (which, a Chinese architect told me, inspired Mao's Mausoleum in Beijing).

BDP is talking not about the State Capitol building but instead the outlying buildings (Will Rogers, Sequoyah, Connors, Hodge) surrounding it, and makes an excellent point. Tear them down. We need space.

Classic Hellenic Greek temples are typified by step pediments forming stairs on all sides with columns (type in Greek temple under Google Image). Roman (with or without dome) have front oriented steps with columns on the front - sometimes on the sides. (type in Roman Temple under Google Image). While the capital does have clear elements of Hellenistic details (a smiliar, but different style from Hellenic) - as are all such buildings it would be better called 'classic' in inspiration - which includes Hellenic, Hellenistic, and Roman (which includes Etruscan, Hellenic, Hellenistic, Egyptian). Hard to find 'pure' Greek inspired buildings - the copy of the Parthenon in Nashville perhaps.

I was more just making a reference to the fact that the building is in terrible disrepair and is crumbling apart, rather than attempting to make a serious comparison between it and Greek architecture...

<petulant_fit>TEAR THEM DOWN THEY ANNOY ME!!</petulant_fit>

http://www.cardcow.com/images/set315/card00580_fr.jpg

Sandridge... i'm right on board... but the Capitol Complex... i must disagree on this one... This is more of an homage to classic greek architecture, because they are all in ruins as well

I see what you did there...

This place belongs in downtown precisely because it is so different from what passes for Oklahoma architecture. Just as downtown is a place to see people of different backgrounds and modes (work, play, living, visiting), you should expect to see varied architecture downtown as well. Image-wise, it's necessary. You don't want visitors to have to drive around town for hours to see something different. I love skyscrapers and want to see more of them in downtown OKC, but as a resident or visitor, I'd rather see Stage Center than Corporate Tower or Oklahoma Tower.

If Stage Center had one significant element of history associated with it, then I could almost jump on board with preserving it. If a sitting president had given a speech there, or if a defining moment in Oklahoma City history occurred there, something to put the building into context, then the obsession with keeping the place would start to make sense. It has been a burden on every organization with financial responsibility for it, it has caused tangible harm to its most recent occupants, and will require massive inflows of cash to rehabilitate into anything useful. Romanticism is nice, but at some point, reality needs to set in.

<petulant_fit>TEAR THEM DOWN THEY ANNOY ME!!</petulant_fit>

http://www.cardcow.com/images/set315/card00580_fr.jpg

Those aren't brutalist. If I recall correctly, up close they are pretty ornate. The big plaza between them and the acres of parking could go away though.