View Full Version : Stage Center



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Urbanized
01-15-2014, 09:11 AM
This photo does an excellent job of demonstrating why SC can't be substantially "relocated" or easily and cheaply rebuilt somewhere else. For the most part, the only things that could possibly be removed and repurposed are the silver boxes mounted above the roofline which all house mechanicals such as air conditioning systems (exciting!), the blue ramps, and the orange connection tubes. Everything else is primarily monolithic, poured-in-place, reinforced concrete. Tearing it down will by itself be a massive chore.

People who suggest it can be moved or easily replicated don't fully grasp the construction of this building. The fact that it SEEMS airy and almost portable when viewed from the street is a visual trick and part of what made the building so innovative at the time.

Photo:

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

flintysooner
01-15-2014, 09:15 AM
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.
I agree with so much of your post. Good job for putting those thoughts into words. I really did enjoy plays there but not much of anything else.

There were so many issues with the construction. So many of those 30 or more roofs leaked and some of those small areas were nearly impossible to make watertight. It was a cold building as I think there was very little insulation. I've heard there were all sorts of mechanical issues. And it was practically inaccessible for a lot of people. I wonder if the building could even be built now and be in compliance. And then there are all those problems with the basement area and the flooding. No telling what all was growing down there.

I think it has been at least 25 years since I attended a performance there so it is been a part of my memory for a lot longer than it was in current.

Pete
01-15-2014, 09:24 AM
This photo does an excellent job of demonstrating why SC can't be substantially "relocated" or easily and cheaply rebuilt somewhere else. For the most part, the only things that could possibly be removed and repurposed are the silver boxes mounted above the roofline which all house mechanicals such as air conditioning systems (exciting!), the blue ramps, and the orange connection tubes. Everything else is primarily monolithic, poured-in-place, reinforced concrete. Tearing it down will by itself be a massive chore.

People who suggest it can be moved or easily replicated don't fully grasp the construction of this building. The fact that it SEEMS airy and almost portable when viewed from the street is a visual trick and part of what made the building so innovative at the time.

Yes, it's largely a series of concrete bunkers set into the ground.

Absolutely no way the large majority of this structure could ever be moved.

shawnw
01-15-2014, 09:38 AM
I was interested in the idea of re-building it from scratch using Johansen's design, since it is that we are lauding, essentially. The only tweaks to be made (in my thinking) would possibly be ADA related and something to prevent the basement flooding and roof leaks, but otherwise use his exact specifications to build a visual replica. More than anything, I'm academically interested in the cost comparison. I'd like to see a no-joke, true-cost estimate of the repairs to baseline, and then a full estimate of the cost to re-build the design elsewhere. I'm truly interested in what the difference would be. I do realize the impracticalities and such. Perhaps it is an impossible feat. But even in that case I'd still like the data. If nothing else it could help defend keeping it where it is and intact.

Pete
01-15-2014, 09:41 AM
It certainly would be cheaper to rebuild most of it rather than trying to relocate.

Urbanized
01-15-2014, 09:41 AM
... like to see a no-joke, true-cost estimate of the repairs to baseline, and then a full estimate of the cost to re-build the design elsewhere. I'm truly interested in what the difference would be...

Herein lies a part of the problem. You could likely never gain such estimates from an agenda-free source. The building is now politicized.

shawnw
01-15-2014, 09:45 AM
Herein lies a part of the problem. You could likely never gain such estimates from an agenda-free source. The building is now politicized.

I agree with that. I realize the flaw in my request. I don't feel it makes the idea entirely invalid, but certainly unlikely to be accomplished.

Just the facts
01-15-2014, 09:47 AM
People who suggest it can be moved or easily replicated don't fully grasp the construction of this building.

From the words of Johansen himself.

Architect Still Marveling Over City Theater Center | News OK (http://newsok.com/architect-still-marveling-over-city-theater-center/article/2097777)


Costing under $3 million, the Mummers to Johansen was "a low budget building of low budget materials."

I think it can be rebuilt somewhere else easily and inexpensively. The biggest problem I see though is that it would probably be illegal to do so (no ADA access, fire codes that require windows, elevators, etc...). And of course, we would still have a brand new building that doesn't meet the needs of the modern live performance industry.

Of Sound Mind
01-15-2014, 09:49 AM
Herein lies a part of the problem. You could likely never gain such estimates from an agenda-free source. The building is now politicized.


I agree with that. I realize the flaw in my request. I don't feel it makes the idea entirely invalid, but certainly unlikely to be accomplished.
So, it's time for all the Stage Center enthusiasts and supporters to put up or shut up. Raise the funds to make it respectable or let the process move forward to repurpose that land to something more productive and less neglected.

shawnw
01-15-2014, 09:55 AM
So, it's time for all the Stage Center enthusiasts and supporters to put up or shut up. Raise the funds to make it respectable or let the process move forward to repurpose that land to something more productive and less neglected.

I'm actually an advocate of moving forward (I authored the insensitive stage center poll), but am also interested in being thorough in the examination of the options and sensitive to what some consider a treasure, even if I do not. It's what I'd like to see being done if I were on the other side of the issue.

Urbanized
01-15-2014, 09:59 AM
Three million dollars...FOURTY FIVE YEARS AGO! Around the same time we built the Myriad for something like $23 million. It would probably cost what...$250 or $300 million today if built to the pre-MAPS configuration.

Yeah, the materials were inexpensive compared to the standard at the time for performing arts centers, which generally included elements like limestone and marble. We get it; SC has bad street interaction, and in your world that makes it unacceptable under any circumstances. But geez, man, you're usually better than just ignoring facts or making stuff up to suit your narrative.

You do make good points about modern building standards making the prospect of from-scratch construction even more expensive.

Pete
01-15-2014, 10:03 AM
FYI, adjusting for inflation $3 million in 1965 would be about $21 million in today's dollars.

shawnw
01-15-2014, 10:03 AM
Not that it matters, but using an inflation calculator (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi), it would cost $17,496,864.45 today. I realize that would be low because we'd have to account for other things today (the ADA stuff, etc).

Urbanized
01-15-2014, 10:15 AM
FYI, adjusting for inflation $3 million in 1965 would be about $21 million in today's dollars.

Thanks for that. By the way, "tens of millions" would still be a bargain-basement price for a performing arts center. They sometimes cost in excess of $100 million these days. The INTERIOR RENOVATION of the Civic Center (admittedly ambitious) was over $50 million more than a decade ago.

jccouger
01-15-2014, 10:35 AM
How much are we spending on the C2S park? 20-30 million to rebuild to rebuild it there wouldn't be bad. We should rebuild it there, and actually have another way to generate revenue for the park. If we don't, and the maintenance issues of the MBG are any indication, we are gonna need revenue from that park in any way possible.

kevinpate
01-15-2014, 11:03 AM
If you can not get folks to buy in on rehabbing the much smaller and far less expensive existing Film Exchange structure on the park property, there is simply no rational reason to believe the folks pressing for the park to be per submitted designs would scrap that vision to plop an SC into the mix. That's one huge chunk of park you are talking about.

OkieNate
01-15-2014, 11:15 AM
If you can not get folks to buy in on rehabbing the much smaller and far less expensive existing Film Exchange structure on the park property, there is simply no rational reason to believe the folks pressing for the park to be per submitted designs would scrap that vision to plop an SC into the mix. That's one huge chunk of park you are talking about.

Its a 70 acre park, space isn't an issue... Capital is the issue and we all get that. Excuse us for trying to have a little vision and faith in OKC we learned from our past(which it seems we haven't) SC is going to get demoed and you and your hero millionaire will get the parking garage you so desperately want...

jccouger
01-15-2014, 11:17 AM
Cheaper is all you care about. We are paying for that park, so we have every right to say what goes on/in the park. And I promise you OKC citizens are 1000:1 more aware of the stage center than the film exchange building. But honestly I'd prefer for us to keep the Exhchange building, and rebuild the stage center there. (Though I'd rather the stage center also just stay put)

proud2Bsooner
01-15-2014, 11:31 AM
The tunnels and other shapes constructed of metal look like a grandpa's solution for disrepair. It looks horribly cheap. That with the bland concrete shapes make BAD architecture. It doesn't matter that the architect was part of a group of 5 Harvard elites. It's bad architecture. It's non-functional and ugly. I swear, when some people see words like iconic, architectural, modern, historic, or famous they go into architectural treasure mode. People are ignoring the sheer ugliness of this building, nevermind the lack of use and poor design that this "famous" garbage gives the city.

People are letting some architectural textbook define who the great architects are, and whether their buildings are worth a darn. We all know, whether we want to admit it or not, that this has been a poor design from almost every aspect from the time they broke ground. Tear it down!

kevinpate
01-15-2014, 11:36 AM
My post wasn't a comment on the SC structure at all. It was on the reality of what the park pushers want, what they already have, and how they have treated the Film Exchange bldg. folks for opposing in any manner the park as they envision it going full steam ahead.

If someone has the capital and wants to acquire land just west of the planned park and rebuild SC right across the street from it, that's likely a plan that would have a better shot at working. This is one place I do part company with those who truly hate SC. It is the design that won an award, not the location of the design.

If someone wants to build a new SC from scratch (it truly can not be moved) and can rework the interior for compliance with today's codes, and can make it work financially so it is actually doable, hey, I'll be there for the ribbon cutting. Just don't include the design aspect that makes it rather prone to flooding. Let that part be buried along with the dead original structure, and have a plan to not have a second failure for want of revenue, flooding, etc.

OkieNate
01-15-2014, 11:40 AM
The tunnels and other shapes constructed of metal look like a grandpa's solution for disrepair. It looks horribly cheap. That with the bland concrete shapes make BAD architecture. It doesn't matter that the architect was part of a group of 5 Harvard elites. It's bad architecture. It's non-functional and ugly. I swear, when some people see words like iconic, architectural, modern, historic, or famous they go into architectural treasure mode. People are ignoring the sheer ugliness of this building, nevermind the lack of use and poor design that this "famous" garbage gives the city.

People are letting some architectural textbook define who the great architects are, and whether their buildings are worth a darn. We all know, whether we want to admit it or not, that this has been a poor design from almost every aspect from the time they broke ground. Tear it down!

Aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder. You telling us this building without a doubt is ugly is like anyone on here telling you your favorite band sucks or your favorite songs are lame and stupid. You have the right to your own opinion as does everyone else but stop trying to make your opinion fact.

jccouger
01-15-2014, 11:45 AM
My post wasn't a comment on the SC structure at all. It was on the reality of what the park pushers want, what they already have, and how they have treated the Film Exchange bldg. folks for opposing in any manner the park as they envision it going full steam ahead.

If someone has the capital and wants to acquire land just west of the planned park and rebuild SC right across the street from it, that's likely a plan that would have a better shot at working. This is one place I do part company with those who truly hate SC. It is the design that won an award, not the location of the design.

If someone wants to build a new SC from scratch (it truly can not be moved) and can rework the interior for compliance with today's codes, and can make it work financially so it is actually doable, hey, I'll be there for the ribbon cutting. Just don't include the design aspect that makes it rather prone to flooding. Let that part be buried along with the dead original structure, and have a plan to not have a second failure for want of revenue, flooding, etc.

You are right, it will never happen. I'm just dreaming and grasping at straws. I just think it would fit in well in the park with the skydance bridge to the south and the MBG tube to the north. All of which is unconventional and all rely on their beauty being in the eye of the beholder. It would create a cool district and I think it would influence design of the buildings that would be constructed along the edges of the park to become more unique in their own right.

Nobody is ever going to recreate the stage center, but I wouldn't be surprised in the future if somebody reconstructed something that was more functional and took design elements from it.

proud2Bsooner
01-15-2014, 01:20 PM
I know where you're coming from in the "aesthetics being in the eye of the beholder" statement, and normally I would agree. But it's hard to make an argument for what looks like corrugated metal and formed concrete. Then with all the leaking and apparent poor construction design. Then with the lack of use versus the space taken. It's a bad design. Poorly conceived all the way around. Dysfunctional and malfunctional.


I can remember asking my parents what that building was when I was a kid. I never went there for anything until adulthood. It's difficult to figure out when navigating, and it's unwelcoming. It doesn't look like a theater.

I would like to read one good aspect about it's design, other than it's modern, iconic, etc. BTW, if it were iconic it would be known by people outside of OKC that aren't architecture students or professors. And the only reason they know of it is because of the elitist culture created in academia (as if everyone else couldn't figure out how the design is so intelligent - you'd have to be an architect to appreciate it). Iconic is much too big of a word for it. The only redeeming quality of it is that it is different. It catches your eye and makes you try and figure out what the heck it is.

OkieNate
01-15-2014, 01:48 PM
I know where you're coming from in the "aesthetics being in the eye of the beholder" statement, and normally I would agree. But it's hard to make an argument for what looks like corrugated metal and formed concrete. Then with all the leaking and apparent poor construction design. Then with the lack of use versus the space taken. It's a bad design. Poorly conceived all the way around. Dysfunctional and malfunctional.


I can remember asking my parents what that building was when I was a kid. I never went there for anything until adulthood. It's difficult to figure out when navigating, and it's unwelcoming. It doesn't look like a theater.

I would like to read one good aspect about it's design, other than it's modern, iconic, etc. BTW, if it were iconic it would be known by people outside of OKC that aren't architecture students or professors. And the only reason they know of it is because of the elitist culture created in academia (as if everyone else couldn't figure out how the design is so intelligent - you'd have to be an architect to appreciate it). Iconic is much too big of a word for it. The only redeeming quality of it is that it is different. It catches your eye and makes you try and figure out what the heck it is.

I don't disagree with you, in fact I agree the thing that makes it "iconic" is its weirdness (I.e. it doesn't look like what it is. The Sydney Opera house doesn't look like a typical oprea house (NOT COMPARING THE TWO, just saying)) Its time probably has come and gone and to some it's time and place never should have happened. My point was simply stop trying making opinion, fact. Its an epidemic on this site and it gets old. This isn't a direct shot at you, I just couldn't contain myself anymore haha. Oh and it looks like corrugated metal and formed concrete because it is supposed to. It's called Brutalist architecture.

Urbanized
01-15-2014, 02:14 PM
Ha ha the anger and vitriol... ...it's like this building beat somebody up in junior high.

TEAR IT DOWN!! TEAR IT DOWN!! BURN IT!! So that we can run around it in the yard like wild injuns (to borrow an admittedly offensive phrase from The Shawshank Redemption). It's predictable. Happens every time there is public discussion over whether or not a significant building should be demolished.

Sorry, I will take the word of the American Institute of Architects and some architectural textbooks over those of a random anonymous Internet poster as to what is bad architecture and what is notable architecture.

Urbanized
01-15-2014, 02:15 PM
..Nobody is ever going to recreate the stage center, but I wouldn't be surprised in the future if somebody in a different city reconstructed something that was more functional and took design elements from it.

Fixed.

UnFrSaKn
01-20-2014, 05:49 PM
Stage Center is being demolished. Good riddance. | The Lost Ogle (http://www.thelostogle.com/2014/01/20/stage-center-is-being-demolished-good-riddance/#more-41417)

OKCRT
01-20-2014, 06:54 PM
IM Pei just about destroyed OKC. I still can't believe that someone in command didn't stop this fool. I mean if I didn't know it really happened I wouldn't believe what he got away with.

GaryOKC6
01-20-2014, 07:10 PM
Ha ha the anger and vitriol... ...it's like this building beat somebody up in junior high.

TEAR IT DOWN!! TEAR IT DOWN!! BURN IT!! So that we can run around it in the yard like wild injuns (to borrow an admittedly offensive phrase from The Shawshank Redemption). It's predictable. Happens every time there is public discussion over whether or not a significant building should be demolished.

Sorry, I will take the word of the American Institute of Architects and some architectural textbooks over those of a random anonymous Internet poster as to what is bad architecture and what is notable architecture.

The problem is that no one wanted to save it bad enough to buy it and restore it. The AIA should have bought it if it was that relevant.

zookeeper
01-20-2014, 07:57 PM
IM Pei just about destroyed OKC. I still can't believe that someone in command didn't stop this fool. I mean if I didn't know it really happened I wouldn't believe what he got away with.

I.M. Pei is one of the most notable architects in the world. A lot of things get lumped into the "Pei Plan" that weren't part of his plan. It's best to say the plan was only partially implemented and we can't really pass judgment on what things might have been. In retrospect, I hate losing those buildings I grew up with. On the other hand, we never saw the Pei Plan except for the demolitions. Though, to be fair, The Myriad Gardens and The Myriad (Cox Convention Center) was an integral part of the Plan.

But I.M. Pei a fool? Hardly (take a look at the list of buildings he designed): Pei Awarded Royal Gold Medal (http://www.architectureweek.com/2010/0210/index.html).

Edit - Take a look at this list. List of I. M. Pei projects - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_I._M._Pei_projects)
No doubt you've marveled yourself at many of these building without knowing they were the work of Mr. Pei.
Here's another list. (http://www.pcf-p.com/a/f/fme/imp/p/p.html)

Pei is no fool.

Spartan
01-20-2014, 08:33 PM
The problem is that no one wanted to save it bad enough to buy it and restore it. The AIA should have bought it if it was that relevant.

Don't pee on our leg and tell us it's raining..

Steve
01-20-2014, 08:34 PM
I urge folks with an interest in OKC's Urban Renewal era and I.M. Pei to read my book "OKC Second Time Around." You can check out a copy from the library or buy one from Full Circle Bookstore. I.M. Pei has plenty of guilt to be shared in bad decisions made, but there's a lot of mythology in this town about what did and didn't happen. Pei did not call for the destruction of the Huckins Hotel or the Biltmore. He did not call for the removal of Main Street. He did call for many other tragedies, most notably the Criterion and Warner Theaters, the Midwest and Baum buildings. There was mostly terrible blight where Stage Center and the Myriad Convention Center were built.

Spartan
01-20-2014, 08:36 PM
I urge folks with an interest in OKC's Urban Renewal era and I.M. Pei to read my book "OKC Second Time Around." You can check out a copy from the library or buy one from Full Circle Bookstore. I.M. Pei has plenty of guilt to be shared in bad decisions made, but there's a lot of mythology in this town about what did and didn't happen. Pei did not call for the destruction of the Huckins Hotel or the Biltmore. He did not call for the removal of Main Street. He did call for many other tragedies, most notably the Criterion and Warner Theaters, the Midwest and Baum buildings. There was mostly terrible blight where Stage Center and the Myriad Convention Center were built.

But being educated on a topic makes it less fun to rant on

zookeeper
01-20-2014, 08:44 PM
I urge folks with an interest in OKC's Urban Renewal era and I.M. Pei to read my book "OKC Second Time Around." You can check out a copy from the library or buy one from Full Circle Bookstore. I.M. Pei has plenty of guilt to be shared in bad decisions made, but there's a lot of mythology in this town about what did and didn't happen. Pei did not call for the destruction of the Huckins Hotel or the Biltmore. He did not call for the removal of Main Street. He did call for many other tragedies, most notably the Criterion and Warner Theaters, the Midwest and Baum buildings. There was mostly terrible blight where Stage Center and the Myriad Convention Center were built.

Thanks for mentioning this. Pei certainly shares blame (a good way to describe it) but he was hardly a "fool" as someone described him in a post above. Great book, by the way!

bchris02
01-20-2014, 10:06 PM
I am sure this has been posted here before, but I watched this for the first time today and thought it interesting. OKC would be wise to keep the Pei Plan in mind during the planning and development of Core2Shore.

Growing with Pride-Oklahoma City Urban Renewal. c. 1960-1970 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhXaPSz8Sto)

UnFrSaKn
02-10-2014, 05:29 PM
I've had these for a couple of years and never thought to post them.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/1972/Mumm.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/1972/Mum.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/1972/MummersT.jpg

lrostochil
02-11-2014, 01:27 PM
In celebration of Valentine's Day and for those of you aren't ready to give up on Stage Center, please join us on Friday at 5:00 for a big building hug. More info here: https://www.facebook.com/events/431721730292788/

betts
02-11-2014, 04:20 PM
I've had these for a couple of years and never thought to post them.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/1972/Mumm.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/1972/Mum.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/1972/MummersT.jpg

Beautiful! Thank you.

okrednk
02-11-2014, 04:50 PM
Not to ruffle any feathers, but this building is one of the ugliest I have seen in almost any city. I think I would rather see a run down victorian home sitting there than this monstrosity. I for one am a fan of the new plans.

CuatrodeMayo
02-11-2014, 05:22 PM
Not to ruffle any feathers, but this building is one of the ugliest I have seen in almost any city. I think I would rather see a run down victorian home sitting there than this monstrosity. I for one am a fan of the new plans.
Completely not surprising considering this poster appears to identify himself as an Oklahoma redneck.

AP
02-11-2014, 05:24 PM
Completely not surprising considering this poster appears to identify himself as an Oklahoma redneck.

+1

mburlison
02-11-2014, 05:27 PM
Not to ruffle any feathers, but this building is one of the ugliest I have seen in almost any city. I think I would rather see a run down victorian home sitting there than this monstrosity. I for one am a fan of the new plans.

Agreed, always reminded me of something akin to this:
http://littlepawssar.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/8/8/1888430/4626412.jpg

kevinpate
02-11-2014, 06:09 PM
Thinking about asking my lovely if she wants to get out on Valentine's and hug something big and old that not near enough folks truly care about. But I am a tad worried she'll just give me a hug and say there, there, it's ok.

OKCisOK4me
02-12-2014, 03:33 PM
Agreed, always reminded me of something akin to this:
http://littlepawssar.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/8/8/1888430/4626412.jpg

^^HAHA! Awesome!!^^

okrednk
02-12-2014, 07:01 PM
Completely not surprising considering this poster appears to identify himself as an Oklahoma redneck.

Sir,

Just because I have a screen name does not imply I am uneducated. Ignorance is bliss.

okrednk
02-12-2014, 07:03 PM
Completely agree.

OKCRT
02-12-2014, 07:16 PM
I am no redneck and I think it's pretty ugly myself. Looks like a big waste of someones money to me. When I first seen this back in the day I thought it was cool. But that wore off pretty quick and now it's looks like wasted space. That sure doesn't mean I am in favor of that tiny little low rise they are talking about building there. And yes,it is a low rise. Not mid rise or high rise but low rise. I mean look at the Colcord and you will see about how tall this project will be. Maybe slightly taller but not much. More wasted space IMO.

OKCisOK4me
02-12-2014, 07:39 PM
I am no redneck and I think it's pretty ugly myself. Looks like a big waste of someones money to me. When I first seen this back in the day I thought it was cool. But that wore off pretty quick and now it's looks like wasted space. That sure doesn't mean I am in favor of that tiny little low rise they are talking about building there. And yes,it is a low rise. Not mid rise or high rise but low rise. I mean look at the Colcord and you will see about how tall this project will be. Maybe slightly taller but not much. More wasted space IMO.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with OKCRT but I am....spot on!

okrednk
02-12-2014, 08:22 PM
I am no redneck and I think it's pretty ugly myself. Looks like a big waste of someones money to me. When I first seen this back in the day I thought it was cool. But that wore off pretty quick and now it's looks like wasted space. That sure doesn't mean I am in favor of that tiny little low rise they are talking about building there. And yes,it is a low rise. Not mid rise or high rise but low rise. I mean look at the Colcord and you will see about how tall this project will be. Maybe slightly taller but not much. More wasted space IMO.

okcrt,

As much as my screen name may say Redneck I am more into the country way of life. I have lived all over the world and actually born abroad. I just chose the screen name 15 or more years ago and have stuck with it ever since.

Aside from that and back to topic. I agree, back in the day the Stage Center may have been neat and the hip thing. I also agree there can always be better than the current plans for this location than what is being proposed. I look at it like this really. These individuals are putting their money into the site to build something that would benefit the momentum of the city and be a better fit in that location. I think the current designs (although not 100% final and somewhat conceptual) in my opinion fit in better with the Devon Tower. The Stage Center served it's purpose and now it's time to move on. I hope one day in the future (20-30 or more years down the road) something a little more grand will be built on this location.

betts
02-12-2014, 10:52 PM
I absolutely love the Stage Center. It lifts my heart. Art and beauty are in the eye of the beholder.

zookeeper
02-12-2014, 11:14 PM
I absolutely love the Stage Center. It lifts my heart. Art and beauty are in the eye of the beholder.

Exactly. I love it, too. I'll never understand the level of hate for Stage Center.

UnFrSaKn
02-19-2014, 05:33 PM
https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1798463_597705440310876_1587063340_n.jpg

kevinpate
02-19-2014, 05:47 PM
I'm curious. For those who want to make this last pitch to save SC ... let's say it is spared. Folks high five each other, landowner says oh, ok, leave it. Not going to fight this fight. OGE slinks away hoping no one recalls they would have been the tenants.

Then what? Who has even a semblance of even a wisp of a teensey beginning of a workable plan for the building to do more than sit empty?

Urbanized
02-19-2014, 06:14 PM
I told myself (and others including those reading this thread) that I would not post here, but I will wade in with (hopefully) just one comment in that regard.

First, I want to be on record as saying that I think the Preservation Oklahoma effort, while noble, is also wasted. I don't believe for a second the building can be saved from the wrecking ball at this point. It's too far down the road and actually this demolition was decided upon long, long ago, through action AND inaction. But PO has a mission, and they would lose credibility if they did not make this last-ditch attempt.

That said, the thing that I have wanted to say for a while - but have bitten my tongue on, owing to my own promise - is that we are really looking at the building the wrong way. That is, every attempt or idea to save it and the arguments of those who say it won't work are based on the idea that it requires a use which (or a tenant who) can pay to restore it and keep it maintained. That is simply not true. The critical mistake that was made years ago was adhering to this principle. Arts groups, for which this building was constructed, are notoriously-underfunded NONPROFITS. They have a difficult enough time raising funds just to put on their next productions, much less fund a wonky building.

If the preservation of this building was important to OKC (and I think it should have been), the solution would have been to make the building's existence and maintenance COMPLETELY SEPARATE from the budget of whatever arts group was its tenant at the moment. There should have been a separate foundation created, devoted solely to the building itself. These exist all over the world. There are even examples in Oklahoma City, for instance Friends of the Mansion, which preserves and protects the Governor's Mansion irrespective of who is in office, or the budgetary whims of the legislature. Buildings like Frank Lloyd Wright's various designs and constructions have foundations dedicated to their survival. A separate Stage Center foundation could have pursued sponsorship, funding and grants from outside the community. It could have reached out to the international architectural community for support. It would have had appeal to architecture lovers like myself who might not have been specifically interested in funding the performing arts tenant du jour. Most importantly, it might have found a local patron or patrons. Instead, the fundraising message was made cloudy and watered down by whichever group was in the building at the time.

The building could have served as an architectural tourist attraction (as does the Overholser Mansion here in OKC, Price Tower in Bartlesville, Taliesin West in Scottsdale, etc.). We have too few of these locally. This would have raised awareness of the building not just outside of the community, but inside it. Public tours could have been not only a source of revenue but also a chance for those who weren't inclined to see a performance there to experience the building, which would have engendered more public affinity.

Regarding the idea that various performing arts groups didn't care for the building, that is fine; even understandable. I think a stable, showpiece building that the arts group wasn't responsible for maintaining would have given many of them a better feeling about the place, and if it didn't, other groups more friendly to the confines would have been pretty easy to cultivate. That group didn't work out? Fine; the building is taken care of. We'll try someone else. The draw of a free or at least less-expensive space would have been powerful.

Anyway, I think this is a bunch of talk about nothing. Stage Center never found its audience. It never found a champion with resources. The building is coming down. I just wish someone had thought to take an approach similar to the one described above back when it would have made a difference.

zookeeper
02-19-2014, 06:32 PM
Well said, Urbanized. For the record, I did argue the point-of-view of asking, "what's wrong with saving art for art's sake?" in another thread. I agree 100%.

I also still believe this will be true for many:

http://i.imgur.com/fn8SUJ3.jpg

coov23
02-19-2014, 07:30 PM
Sir,

Just because I have a screen name does not imply I am uneducated. Ignorance is bliss.

So why glorify a negative connotation? Being a self-proclaimed redneck is no better than a black guy bragging about being a gangster, or any other negative connotation the is apart of any ethnicity or culture. It seems that country music has glorified being a "redneck" as much as hip-hop has gangsters. It's not looked upon as a something to be proud of. Redneck is synonymous with uneducated, poorly mannered and spoken people. Sorry, I digress.

I do, however, agree that the building is useless at this point. I do think that a much better project would be more fit for that property, though.

okrednk
02-19-2014, 09:03 PM
So why glorify a negative connotation? Being a self-proclaimed redneck is no better than a black guy bragging about being a gangster, or any other negative connotation the is apart of any ethnicity or culture. It seems that country music has glorified being a "redneck" as much as hip-hop has gangsters. It's not looked upon as a something to be proud of. Redneck is synonymous with uneducated, poorly mannered and spoken people. Sorry, I digress.

I do, however, agree that the building is useless at this point. I do think that a much better project would be more fit for that property, though.

As I've mentioned before I chose the screen name long ago. Does it really matter. Not really, I'll digress talking any further about something as petty as a screen name. Either like it or don't, doesn't matter to me. I for one have never said anything about anyone or felt the need to say something about anyone based on their name, race, religion, etc. Let it be and get back on topic.

Plutonic Panda
02-19-2014, 10:24 PM
So why glorify a negative connotation? Being a self-proclaimed redneck is no better than a black guy bragging about being a gangster, or any other negative connotation the is apart of any ethnicity or culture. It seems that country music has glorified being a "redneck" as much as hip-hop has gangsters. It's not looked upon as a something to be proud of. Redneck is synonymous with uneducated, poorly mannered and spoken people. Sorry, I digress.

I do, however, agree that the building is useless at this point. I do think that a much better project would be more fit for that property, though.Dude, it's a freaking username. Who the hell cares. We have a user on here that has the name cocaine; do you think he uses cocaine? Do you really think I am a Panda made of Plutonium? Come on....

macfoucin
02-20-2014, 07:52 AM
Just my opinion, who cares about a user name!? Another opinion, every time I see stage center I can't help but think, that is a horrendous look building.

OKCSteel
02-20-2014, 08:07 AM
These extremists were given a chance to save Stage Center before it was put up for sale. Tear the darn thing down already so we don't have to hear the few extremists whine about how "important" the building is.