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...

I suspected this, and am not trying to pick on anyone in particular, but I do tire of terms getting tossed around so casually. Like calling SC 'brutalist' architecture. I realize that it is expressed in a 'brutalistic' manner - materials shown, construction elements not hidden, but at it's heart, it is simply another expression of Modern Architecture. During the time this was built, brutalist decor was 'all the rage'. I know that if you type this building in a search engine, 'brutalist' will come up. This does exemplify the problem (like 'Greek') of classifying architectural styles. Why is this important? Because Stage Center is completely unique in Modern Architecture. 'Modern' as a type is widely defined (OMG) but it is about 'space' - as in the flow and relationship of inclosed space. There are lots of buildings that are 'Brutalist' in form with traditional plans. But there are few, if any, buildings that treat space the way SC does. Basically the architect created a 3d version of a spatial architectual diagram ( sworegonarchitect.blogspot.com - as an example). Like most people - Americans in-particular - we tend to see buildings as 'objects' because that is how we initially experience them. But, what made buildings by F.L.Wright unique was how they treated interior space (organic - free flowing). To this extent, SC takes this to an extreme!

From a Wikipedia site:

Common themes of modern architecture include:
the notion that "Form follows function", a dictum originally expressed by Frank Lloyd Wright's early mentor Louis Sullivan, meaning that the result of design should derive directly from its purpose
simplicity and clarity of forms and elimination of "unnecessary detail"
visual expression of structure (as opposed to the hiding of structural elements)
the related concept of "Truth to materials", meaning that the true nature or natural appearance of a material ought to be seen rather than concealed or altered to represent something else
use of industrially-produced materials; adoption of the machine aesthetic
particularly in International Style modernism, a visual emphasis on horizontal and vertical linesodern:

For an example of 'spatial relationship diagram' try this instead: an open [sketch]book: experience 2: bubble diagrams (http://www.anopensketchbook.com/2008/02/experience-2-bubble-diagrams.html)

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.

I don't have a problem with the architecture, I actually like it, which is why I wouldn't mind it if it were in the suburbs. It has the layout of a suburban building which doesn't belong downtown. Specifically, it sits on prime real estate while it's there empty & we've got companies bidding to build on that site, which now it seems that a tower announcement / proposal is imminent. If anyone is marveling at the architecture, it's most likely Devon, the Skydance Bridge, or some of the more intriguing & exciting renovation projects recently completed. Heck, FNC is more interesting than the Stage Center & that building needs a renovation more than OKC needs another tower, IMO.

I agree with what you're saying, just not in this scenario.

I don't see how something so modern would fit in in a suburban environment.

I don't see how something so modern would fit in in a suburban environment.

If it was next to a high school it would probably blend in well, especially any pre-80's campus; most of the larger schools have similar or higher than it's capacity, most of theirs fall into the 'modern' design as well and the design makes it looks like like something a school system would own.

I suspected this, and am not trying to pick on anyone in particular, but I do tire of terms getting tossed around so casually. Like calling SC 'brutalist' architecture. I realize that it is expressed in a 'brutalistic' manner - materials shown, construction elements not hidden, but at it's heart, it is simply another expression of Modern Architecture. During the time this was built, brutalist decor was 'all the rage'. I know that if you type this building in a search engine, 'brutalist' will come up. This does exemplify the problem (like 'Greek') of classifying architectural styles. Why is this important? Because Stage Center is completely unique in Modern Architecture. 'Modern' as a type is widely defined (OMG) but it is about 'space' - as in the flow and relationship of inclosed space. There are lots of buildings that are 'Brutalist' in form with traditional plans. But there are few, if any, buildings that treat space the way SC does. Basically the architect created a 3d version of a spatial architectual diagram ( sworegonarchitect.blogspot.com - as an example). Like most people - Americans in-particular - we tend to see buildings as 'objects' because that is how we initially experience them. But, what made buildings by F.L.Wright unique was how they treated interior space (organic - free flowing). To this extent, SC takes this to an extreme!

From a Wikipedia site:

Common themes of modern architecture include:
the notion that "Form follows function", a dictum originally expressed by Frank Lloyd Wright's early mentor Louis Sullivan, meaning that the result of design should derive directly from its purpose
simplicity and clarity of forms and elimination of "unnecessary detail"
visual expression of structure (as opposed to the hiding of structural elements)
the related concept of "Truth to materials", meaning that the true nature or natural appearance of a material ought to be seen rather than concealed or altered to represent something else
use of industrially-produced materials; adoption of the machine aesthetic
particularly in International Style modernism, a visual emphasis on horizontal and vertical linesodern:

Except it doesn't really fulfill its function very well. It's got lots of mechanical problems and issues with drainage related to its design. It is not a very functional theater.

I don't think we should tear it down to put a McDonald's there, it is an interesting building. But that space needs to be actively used. If someone comes along with plans for a 600' tall skyscraper, especially a company that will be moving its operations here, I'll take that over an empty shell anyday. If we're going to save it, then let's save it. But it's been there for decades waiting for someone to return it to use, and it hasn't happened yet. Its time is almost up.

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.

A structure doesn't have to necessarily be associated historic events to be considered historic. I can be considered on its design alone, and in my opinion, this certainly qualifies. It's unique, and represents a specific school of architecture. When you're on the great lawn of Myriad Gardens looking west, the structure is a one-of-a-kind sight that will remind visitors they are not in their own downtown park. I think it deserves preservation, but that wasn't the point of my post. The arguments for and against have been made ad nauseum. The point is, downtowns ought to be great showcases for architecture.


I don't have a problem with the architecture, I actually like it, which is why I wouldn't mind it if it were in the suburbs. It has the layout of a suburban building which doesn't belong downtown. Specifically, it sits on prime real estate while it's there empty & we've got companies bidding to build on that site, which now it seems that a tower announcement / proposal is imminent. If anyone is marveling at the architecture, it's most likely Devon, the Skydance Bridge, or some of the more intriguing & exciting renovation projects recently completed. Heck, FNC is more interesting than the Stage Center & that building needs a renovation more than OKC needs another tower, IMO.

I agree with what you're saying, just not in this scenario.

I understand it is not built to the street as most downtown buildings should be. Aesthetically, it feels more at home with its jungle jim cousins. That's why it seems to fit so well visually with the Myriad Gardens. Nowhere in my post did I say that Stage Center was worth saving more than First National; it's for me the most significant building downtown. It's as if my post was taken as an assault on all towers downtown. Does anyone seriously think Corporate Tower and First National Center are in the same league architecturally?

But look, I understand market forces. Again, my post wasn't intended to be another argument for preservation.

I suspected this, and am not trying to pick on anyone in particular, but I do tire of terms getting tossed around so casually. Like calling SC 'brutalist' architecture. I realize that it is expressed in a 'brutalistic' manner - materials shown, construction elements not hidden, but at it's heart, it is simply another expression of Modern Architecture.

I guess we could debate this all day, but to what end?

Modernism and Brutalism | Architecture, Landscape, and Urban Design (http://architecturestyles.org/post-war-modern/)


Like International style, Brutalism is sometimes classified as its own distinctive subtype, though it is considered a variant of post-war modernism. Despite its apparently appropriate name, Brutalism is derived from the French term, beton brut, which translates to “rough concrete”. It is essentially a style based on the shaped and molded forms of concrete, a thick, masonry variation of modernist architecture. Regardless of how the International style, Modernism, and Brutalism are classified, they all share the fundamental modernist principle promoted by Louis Sullivan and his contemporaries and successors, that “form forever follows function,” without relying on revivalist architectural styles of the past.

Nowhere in my post did I say that Stage Center was worth saving more than First National; it's for me the most significant building downtown. It's as if my post was taken as an assault on all towers downtown.

Nowhere in my post did I mean to imply that you said Stage Center should be saved instead of FNC, which I'm glad we agree on FNC. Also nowhere did I mean to imply -- even though it may have come across that way -- that you were against all towers, current & future, downtown. I don't know what context you read it in or if you jumped to your defense guns before you even started reading my post, but for the most part we're on the same page.

I'm not against the Stage Center & as I've stated I actually like the architecture, but FNC has more potential than the SC if put in the right hands. I'll take SC over Corporate Tower everyday though.

Edit: I agree that it fits in well with the Myriad Gardens.

Note: Everything I state is just my opinion. I'm not claiming it as fact.

Mississippi, I guess it's much ado about nothing. Throwing First National into the argument made it seem as if you were making a statement that only towers belong in a downtown, but I can see how that wasn't your intention.

If I had more money than sense I like to think I would swoop in, buy SC, make it usable again and keep it around for a long long time. Couple of reasons.

Starving artists need a venue too.
I just like the place.
It would give folk a new reason to question my sanity (kinda bored with the old ones)
I'd always know where I would park when DT
Private venue for select guests NYE
Turn part of the grounds into paid surface parking so folks could grumble ibam both greedy and a fool. Sort of like going into politics but fewer sweaty hands to shake and no leaky baby diapers.
Built in crash pad if I stay in the city too late.

Just maybe, just maybe we can have our cake and eat it too.

Back in the early '80's, what was then called the Holy Ghost Tower in Denver was built around an existing church they did not want to destroy. Maybe the same thing is possible with this site for at least some of the SC ?

1999 Broadway - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Broadway)

Mississippi, I guess it's much ado about nothing. Throwing First National into the argument made it seem as if you were making a statement that only towers belong in a downtown, but I can see how that wasn't your intention.

All is good my friend. I figured it was just simple miscommunication. No hard feelings.

Back in the early '80's, what was then cJust maybe, just maybe we can have our cake and eat it too.
alled the Holy Ghost Tower in Denver was built around an existing church they did not want to destroy. Maybe the same thing is possible with this site for at least some of the SC ?

Perhaps a privacy fence, based on this design, with mirrors in the spaces, and little slits to actually see the architectural marvel?

http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/8/2008/09/stonehenge.jpg

[QUOTE=UnFrSaKn;420360]Mummers Theater (http://www.seasonsofsoulfilm.com/Mummers_Theater.html)
Video clips.

Clips (http://www.seasonsofsoulfilm.com/SEASONS_OF_THE_SOUL_WEBSITE/Clips.html)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nUYDq-LrCs

I think this man would have a problem with his building being bulldozed. (unquote c. first page on the topic)



Perhaps, in order to put this debate into current perspective, we need to take a moment to go "Back For The Future" . . . ? (page 1 post 41) I still say moving it down to I-235 would improve the area.

He's passed away.

He's passed away.

So, also, have Frank Lloyd Wright, Buckminster Fuller, that Mies Van der Roh fellow . . .
Do these facts make my suggestions for proposed uses of this local "monument" to one seventh of The Harvard Seven more or less fitting?
It can only improve the cultural ambiance of I-235 . . . especially over around Crossroads Mall.

. . . in this day and age =)
yXvaM7kSYQ4

I guess we could debate this all day, but to what end?

Modernism and Brutalism | Architecture, Landscape, and Urban Design (http://architecturestyles.org/post-war-modern/)


There is nothing further to debate (for multiple reasons). TAlan clearly has certain amount of knowledge and/or education in architecture. His assessment is correct.

Except, perhaps, for moving Stage Center over by that unfinished monument to Native Americana? Instead of to I-235. The "walkability" would be better . . . and while the adults marveled at the architecture, they could rent bicycles to the kids to ride up and down that big dirt pile.

There is nothing further to debate (for multiple reasons). TAlan clearly has certain amount of knowledge and/or education in architecture. His assessment is correct.

I thought he said brutalism wasn't part of modernism. No worries, I probably misread what he wrote.

Obv this charge of "soviet style architecture" is more of a value-laden term than anything based in reality.

Jacobsen, in the video about Stage Center on his website, says that it is not brutalism. It is one of the first examples of ad-hocism which uses lighter materials, materials from the surrounding environment, has bright colors, etc. To me it's one of the first transitional pieces in America between the mid century modern period and the start of our current modern era. It's one of the reasons I find the building significant.

What if the city donated the site behind the SC, the arts plaza, in exchange for the new company repairing and turning the SC into an "Energy Museum" focusing on the development of the on-land oil and gas fields in this country. Surrounded by major players, it might be a great draw for any employees, potential employees, royalty owners, and tourists who are interested in how the energy business, especially the exploration part, has progressed and where it is headed. I bet THIS would get the other O&G companies interested in contributing to and supporting. There should still be room for a tower on the bigger site.

Another indication that it's gone.

Owners of Oklahoma City's Stage Center decline listing on National Register of Historic Places | News OK (http://newsok.com/owners-of-oklahoma-citys-stage-center-decline-listing-on-national-register-of-historic-places/article/3785663)


The Oklahoma City Community Foundation did not want its property on the National Register because it believes it could make it difficult to sell, said Mark Beffort of Grubb & Ellis-Levy Beffort, which is marketing Stage Center to potential buyers.

Stage Center (June 10 2013) - a set on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/williamhider/sets/72157634060175673/)

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2822/9013929674_7e9257227f_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7295/9013928666_096d95c04f_b.jpg

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2893/9013928182_b5ec2964f0_b.jpg

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3716/9013921588_6dd9ae4ea1_b.jpg

Thank you for posting these. Some day, we'll look at these pics like we would a lost love one. Don't get me wrong, I'm excited about the potential for another monster tower, but I will miss this uniquely-OKC site. The Arts Festival just won't be the same without it.

While I'm excited about another tower, losing the Stage Center is heartbreaking to me. If architecture can lift your heart, that building does it for me. I think it's hysterical that anyone would choose the term "brutalist" to describe it, because I see it as joyous and playful.

There's a layer of water on the roofs of some of the little structures.

While I'm excited about another tower, losing the Stage Center is heartbreaking to me. If architecture can lift your heart, that building does it for me. I think it's hysterical that anyone would choose the term "brutalist" to describe it, because I see it as joyous and playful.

Betts,

I feel your pain, but hopefully we won't see you on the news chained to one of the SC buildings as they start demo ! lol

I do hope some how some way they can salvage some of the remnants of these structures and put over in the C2S park.

There's a layer of water on the roofs of some of the little structures.

Yes, quite a bit in several spots and it hasn't rained for a few days, has it?

I've had mixed feelings about this building all the way along but the simple truth is that in it's decades of existence, the huge majority of time it's been in disrepair. It's looked atrocious for some time now.

I'm starting to look forward to seeing something new and shiny in it's place.

I think it could be something really worth fighting to keep if it was functional. There are other places to build towers, we don't have to tear up Stage Center. The only problem is, it doesn't function. Right now it exists as a big, city-block sized piece of modern art. There don't appear to be any plans to make it work as an actual stage again, or as anything else. If we could go back to MAPS 3 proposals and put in "$40M - turn Stage Center into Children's Museum" then it might work.

Betts,

I feel your pain, but hopefully we won't see you on the news chained to one of the SC buildings as they start demo ! lol

I do hope some how some way they can salvage some of the remnants of these structures and put over in the C2S park.

I must say I've thought about it! I would love to see parts of it at the C2S park.

Oh look..a lil bit of recent history for you lovers out there. Can't wait for this lot to be flattened for construction of a new chapter!

I think moving some of its iconic pods to the C2S park which is currently too boilerplate for me to support, would be a slam-dunk. That park needs some local touches and we need to preserve our local history.

http://youtu.be/iEimNuaWnjQ

Stage Center (June 10 2013) - YouTube (http://youtu.be/iEimNuaWnjQ)

Stage Center (July 9 2013) - a set on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/williamhider/sets/72157634647074908/)

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3794/9269909601_e64627bf12_b.jpg

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3748/9272690738_4540d0e2c7_b.jpg

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3762/9272689958_9ab94135b6_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7322/9272689236_937d5827d9_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7451/9269897489_691dce4ce6_b.jpg

Stage Center (July 13 2013) - a set on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/williamhider/sets/72157634647090126/)

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2879/9290259274_98a96cca4f_b.jpg

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3761/9290424142_c42ca0cc9b_b.jpg

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3754/9290418278_f4a2e95f62_b.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5502/9287602493_f3c8dc1047_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7384/9290377482_9699d15dbe_b.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5461/9287601631_4a38bb5e4a_b.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5337/9287575767_9d83f2490f_b.jpg

Thanks for those photos. I love this building. I bet there will be regret over its destruction some day.

It's very interesting looking, I'll give you that.

It's very interesting looking, I'll give you that.

It certainly is the only building downtown that consistently draws interest from my friends and family when they visit. Granted, most, if not all of them have lived or do live in much larger cities, so they're not easily wowed. Most think Devon center is nice, but familiar and kind of find its elevated significance more an indicator of Oklahoma City's lack of major corporate presence. So, it's actually Stage Center across the street that grabs their fascination, especially when I explain what it was.

From yesterday:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3682/9364814032_8812b4ea27_b.jpg

Hopefully they find a way to transplant those trees instead of just cutting them down.

Whatever is easiest, that's what they will do probably.

Hopefully they find a way to transplant those trees instead of just cutting them down.

Trees can be planted. These trees were only planted to hide Stage Center anyway...

Trees can be planted. These trees were only planted to hide Stage Center anyway...

Yeah, we don't want to retain this species of tree downtown.. Dean McGee chose them because they grew wild and thick and blocked views.

Notice how mature the trees in the Myriad Gardens look already, and most were new plantings after the recent renovation.

Much, much more is now known about landscape architecture than just 20 years ago. Or at the very least, landscape arch has become a full-blown and valued profession in it's own right and is no longer just a matter of planting some pretty trees and letting them grow.

It's one of the great things about Project 180... Getting in the right species of plants, making sure they have the right type of irrigation, making sure they can withstand the elements, allowing for their growth patterns, etc.

Who said anything about keeping them in the same spot? Hence the word "transplant." You guys really made a much bigger deal out of this than I intended.

Still it was a good comment; we don't want "just any" tree even if it does happen to already be in the area. When I moved to my present home in 1982, I immediately planted a row of poplars in the green belt behind my lot, to add variety to the cottonwoods, mulberry, and willows already there. I chose poplars for their rapid growth, not realizing that also implied short life -- and blissfully unaware that poplar is considered "junk wood" by landscapers. They did grow quite tall in just a couple of years, and then the first strong downdraft came along and felled them! I moved some of the red cedars that were volunteering in the area, to replace them, and those lasted without damage until the huge ice storm about 10 years ago. A falling cottonwood limb smashed one of them; the rest are still thriving.

These days I'm paying the price for encouraging those cedars, having become quite allergic to their pollen. Still, they do offer a nice bit of variety, along with the redbuds (which failed to survive last summer's drought), crepe myrtles, maple, sweet gum, and pecan (grown from a nut over the past 31 years) that I also added to the area -- and the homeowners' association hasn't minded my efforts a bit.

Yep, when my family bought a new home in NW OKC in 1962, we planted 8 trees.

When we sold in 1989, all were mature and healthy.

Now, all but one are gone. Either destroyed by disease, the elements or removed by the owner because they were unmanageable. So, instead of a nice mature tree canopy, there is one tree left, and it's in the backyard. I've noticed the rest of the neighborhood trees are pretty sparse as well.

Very sad, as that should be a neighborhood and area benefiting from hundreds and hundreds of trees of 50+ years in age. And we all know mature trees can make any neighborhood look much better and lends tremendous character you can't find at 188th & MacArthur.


The home I live in now was built in 1984 and in the ten years I've owned it, I've had to remove three trees and tons of shrubs and still am fighting a constant battle to manage what remains because everything was over-planted and/or just wrong for the setting. And my lot is less than 8,000 sf!

Notice how mature the trees in the Myriad Gardens look already, and most were new plantings after the recent renovation.

Much, much more is now known about landscape architecture than just 20 years ago. Or at the very least, landscape arch has become a full-blown and valued profession in it's own right and is no longer just a matter of planting some pretty trees and letting them grow.

It's one of the great things about Project 180... Getting in the right species of plants, making sure they have the right type of irrigation, making sure they can withstand the elements, allowing for their growth patterns, etc.

I worked at the Colcord during the Myriad renovation. I remember early on talking with the horticulturists from OJB about plant selection (because I consider myself a garden snob haha). They didn't disappoint. I have to say that OJB did everything right as far as I'm concerned.

I worked at the Colcord during the Myriad renovation. I remember early on talking with the horticulturists from OJB about plant selection (because I consider myself a garden snob haha). They didn't disappoint. I have to say that OJB did everything right as far as I'm concerned.

Too bad the Gardens aren't being maintained though.

Too bad the Gardens aren't being maintained though.

Really? How so?

Here are a couple I took last week in the Children's Garden for starters...

41854186

1 in about every 3-5 lights are out. As a somewhat regular visitor, I have noticed several maintenance issues over the last few weeks.

Ugggg! That's it! No more kiddos in the park! (The plant selection is still tops though ;) )

Really? How so?

I don't live in the metro; I've just heard the stories about the dying plants and cracking surfaces along with a few photos posted on here, sounds like it's even worse in the crystal bridge. I just don't get why things can't be maintained there.

Stage Center sold | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2013/07/25/stage-center-sold-real-estate/)

I've always looked at Stage Center as a lost opportunity in space useage. The tunnels do a horrible job of connecting the pods because you're so limited in your space. The someone that's elderly, the walking distances inside are not friendly either. The idea behind it (the shared theater space) is a great one and all, I just dont thing SC ever did a good job of executing it. There are several ways to create shared spaces between the various types of theaters as well so they can better share resources, which is imperative for this type of project. You dont have to create a massive lobby or anything crazy like that to do this, but the lack of any real connecting lobby means it also lacks the ability to gather the people during events. What it does have in lobby space is pretty sad. That's the type of space you use to hold fundraisers to keep yourself above water too. It's fine arts, it has to get donations coming in outside of ticket sales in order to survive. Unforunately, we the "coalition" environment that ran the place was never able to get things like that organized in any meaningful and sustainable way. Being an amateur theater group, it tended to have amateurs in the background as well. All the heart and passion in the world can't make up for the backoffice.

The size of each theater really is spot on for the performance groups that use the space though. It'a a resource I really hope comes back and would be a great project for a future MAPs program maybe? We won't see anything quite as different as it's surroundings. Heck, Disney Concert Hall in L.A. was first looked as in horror as well. Fortunate for them, the amazing acoustics and design inside has helped show people what that type of design can do for a structure. But in Disney's case, the "crazy" shapes are actually part of what make the sound work. in Stage Center, it does nothing.

Too bad the Gardens aren't being maintained though.

This is why I think the less programming in the new Central Park, the better. To me, there is so much to take care of, it has to be very difficult to oversee. Having had big perennial beds in the past, it required constant labor to maintain them. Mowing grass and picking up leaf litter is far easier and requires far less manpower. And a stroll on a path under the trees is a relaxing way to be out of doors.

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/6084d1389797417-stage-center-sc11314a.jpg

Such a unique and interesting building. Beautiful picture, even more so knowing it will be all we will have left of the building.