Historic preservationists = potential terrorists.

gotcha.

Do you really think I am a Panda made of Plutonium? Come on....

Wait, what?!

Wait, what?!

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/xx68/skyfallen_meli/Gifs/Shocked.gif

Who said this building isn't functional??


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/sc021514a.jpg

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.

You mean the sham RFP..

What's that one kid doing on the ledge ?

Actually, there are a few with a lack of common sense there....

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

Top picture is WOW!!! Good find.

What's that one kid doing on the ledge ?

Actually, there are a few with a lack of common sense there....
Parkour/FreeRunning. It's a pretty common activity downtown these days. That building is probably tailor-made for it.

Wait, what?!My username is not made to suggest platonic meanings such as a platonic relationship. I know plutonic is technically not a word, but I liked it.

My username is not made to suggest platonic meanings such as a platonic relationship. I know plutonic is technically not a word, but I liked it.

Pump your brakes, I'm still trying to get over the fact that you're not a panda made of plutonium.

My username is not made to suggest platonic meanings such as a platonic relationship.

Wait this panda is not platonic?

Pump your brakes, I'm still trying to get over the fact that you're not a panda made of plutonium.

I have doubts he is the red spy from TF2 either

Pump your brakes, I'm still trying to get over the fact that you're not a panda made of plutonium.I know, I know, it is shocking. I had to go under some pretty insensitive therapy when I found out myself.

Wait this panda is not platonic?It could be for the right price

Historic preservationists = potential terrorists.

gotcha.

Cuatro,

I'm all for saving historic gems. Stage center is not one of them. If someone was trying to tear down the uhaul building, I would expect major opposition.

Cuatro,

I'm all for saving historic gems. Stage center is not one of them. If someone was trying to tear down the uhaul building, I would expect major opposition.


But I suspect many would support tearing the "uhaul" OFF the building...

But I suspect many would support tearing the "uhaul" OFF the building...

Are you insane!? that truck is a historic ICON!

Are you insane!? that truck is a historic ICON!


I'd rather have the original Iten Biscuit Company Building.

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/Bricktown/bricktown_collection_041.jpg

Vintage Oklahoma City - Iten Biscuit Company (http://www.dougloudenback.com/maps/vintage_iten.htm)

I'd rather have the original Iten Biscuit Company Building.

That was my point. By "tear the Uhaul off" I meant all signs of it ever being a Uhaul, not just the truck.

If there were a demolition debate surrounding the U-Haul/Iten Biscuit Co. Building, there would be a similar loud chorus screaming "tear it down" and calling those who want preservation "extremists." It's the most predictable part of EVERY public demolition/preservation discussion, for EVERY threatened building.

If there were a demolition debate surrounding the U-Haul/Iten Biscuit Co. Building, there would be a similar loud chorus screaming "tear it down" and calling those who want preservation "extremists." It's the most predictable part of EVERY public demolition/preservation discussion, for EVERY threatened building.

True, but I suspect a lot of folks would be chanting different chants and waving different signs at the Uhaul bldg.

There would only be a different set of people seeking preservation. I doubt the public in general would be up in arms.

Cuatro,

I'm all for saving historic gems. Stage center is not one of them. If someone was trying to tear down the uhaul building, I would expect major opposition.

That would be interesting. It would certainly reinforce the prevailing desire for homogeneity in Oklahoma City. I'm not saying it's not a neat building, but more so for it's age than any interesting architectural features. Every city that built a warehouse / industrial district in the first part of the 20th century has several buildings like that. We're lucky that the bricktown area was largely unaffected by urban renewal and I am opposed to any demolition in the area, but it would certainly be a head scratcher for me if the community was able to save the uhaul building after losing a truly unique Stage Center and a truly historic India Temple. Maybe not surprising, but confusing to me at least.

But I suspect many would support tearing the "uhaul" OFF the building...

Absolutely agree, would be an amazing looking building if they can pull that shell off that baby.

Are you insane!? that truck is a historic ICON!

Just to clarify, that was sarcasm.

Just to clarify, that was sarcasm.

I figured, but was clarifying also :-)

Getting off-topic here. Let's remember that this thread isn't about the U-Haul building. It's the thread where people pound their fists in rage, disgusted that anyone might actually LIKE Stage Center, and demand that it be torn down...IMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!11

Not entirely. I'm fine if it takes until August. :)

I do loathe the U-Haul building in its present form.

Knock it down then

Aesthetically it would be an improvement. As it is, the appearance is somewhere between 4 acres of billboard, metal building siding and/or dryvit and it's been that way for decades.

It looks great underneath though, I bet.

The facade is 100% preserved (under paint, which can be easily removed). Even the casement windows are intact. The hardwood floors inside are in good shape, if painted, and the storage units are mostly plywood built between the concrete columns, which could be removed in a couple of days by a couple of guys with a Bobcat and a couple of sledgehammers. It is the single best candidate for loft conversion left downtown.

But enough about U-Haul...back to beating our fists on the table and demanding immediate demolition of the most internationally-acclaimed building in OKC!

Metal building siding and dryvit were too kind. It looks like a building boarded up with T1-11. Fugly.

I'd take Stage Center if I had to chose. <fist bang>

Aesthetically it would be an improvement. As it is, the appearance is somewhere between 4 acres of billboard, metal building siding and/or dryvit and it's been that way for decades.

You're problem is lack of vision. That's why people have piled on against you in other threads. Combine the notion of "what would be best here" with "what could this become." That requires the capacity to visualize something better.

The Uhaul Bldg is an awesome bldg underneath that horrific outer layer, and Stage Center (getting back to the subject) could be an incredible landmark in the fashion of the Pompidou Center or Louvre. It never had any streetscape and that's why OKC never appreciated this work of art and let it deteriorate.

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

Imagine this incredibly cool structure with better sight lines and integrated design with the surrounding streets. Imagine California reopened with awesome views at the end in front of Crystal Bridge. Imagine this area surrounded by a quality urban district. That would be "world class."

The value of what this COULD be far outweighs the value of what OGE will build.

The Great and Mighty Oz has spoken.

Stage Center (getting back to the subject) could be an incredible landmark in the fashion of the Pompidou Center or Louvre.

How fitting that you chose the ugliest building in Paris to compare with SC.


It never had any streetscape and that's why OKC never appreciated this work of art and let it deteriorate.

That is laughable. The reason SC was never appreciated in OKC was that it was forced on us by an architect whose work was appreciated by a small minority. Unlike the emperor in the fairy tale we never believed that SC was a work of art, no matter what anyone told us.

This thread is having as difficult a time dying as the subject of it.

I didn't say the building couldn't be something else fabulous or that it shouldn't be saved. And I'm not the one who brought it up. I said its present form is horribly ugly, it dominates the bricktown landscape, it's been that way for over half my lifetime and I have no expectation it's going to change anytime soon. By comparison. Stage Center could be completely unused and would still be a really interesting feature in the downtown landscape.

What the U-Haul building does have going for it, it that it's being used apparently. Which is worth something but unrelated to aesthetics.

That is laughable. The reason SC was never appreciated in OKC was that it was forced on us by an architect whose work was appreciated by a small minority. Unlike the emperor in the fairy tale we never believed that SC was a work of art, no matter what anyone told us.

It is true that SC was never something that would be appreciated by most people in OKC as a work of art. It was a mistake to do something so different here. The funny thing is that it is the only building that I ever heard unsolicited appreciation for from out-of-towners. But I think that's mainly because everything else downtown is so familiar, or just completely unremarkable. That's not to say that there isn't other cool architecture downtown, but Stage Center was the one building in OKC that was new and different to even well traveled people. Yes, usually it is often the unfamiliar that wins peer awards and then struggles for mass appreciation. It does seem very out of place to have taken those kinds of risks in Oklahoma City, but I don't think we have to worry about that happening again for a very long time. We're pretty much destined to be the kakhi pants and golf shirt of architecture. But at least it's not as boring as it looks and residents can relax knowing the probability of anyone trying to build something unique again is very low. They rarely do it in many large markets anymore, so the chances of any more unfamiliar works happening here seem pretty slim.

we're pretty much destined to be the kakhi pants and golf shirt of architecture.

like

+1

To each their own. But keeping with the clothing analogy, I'd rather have a closet full of khaki pants and golf shirts with a few nice slacks and button down shirts, and even a duct tape joke outfit, than a closet full of multi-colored duct tape jackets, neon board shorts and merely one pair of khaki pants and one golf shirt.

Stage Center = Craig Sager

It is true that SC was never something that would be appreciated by most people in OKC as a work of art. It was a mistake to do something so different here. The funny thing is that it is the only building that I ever heard unsolicited appreciation for from out-of-towners. But I think that's mainly because everything else downtown is so familiar, or just completely unremarkable. That's not to say that there isn't other cool architecture downtown, but Stage Center was the one building in OKC that was new and different to even well traveled people. Yes, usually it is often the unfamiliar that wins peer awards and then struggles for mass appreciation. It does seem very out of place to have taken those kinds of risks in Oklahoma City, but I don't think we have to worry about that happening again for a very long time. We're pretty much destined to be the kakhi pants and golf shirt of architecture. But at least it's not as boring as it looks and residents can relax knowing the probability of anyone trying to build something unique again is very low. They rarely do it in many large markets anymore, so the chances of any more unfamiliar works happening here seem pretty slim.

I really don't want to believe that it was a mistake to do something truly "world class" in OKC.

To each their own. But keeping with the clothing analogy, I'd rather have a closet full of khaki pants and golf shirts with a few nice slacks and button down shirts, and even a duct tape joke outfit, than a closet full of multi-colored duct tape jackets, neon board shorts and merely one pair of khaki pants and one golf shirt.
+11

To each their own. But keeping with the clothing analogy, I'd rather have a closet full of khaki pants and golf shirts with a few nice slacks and button down shirts, and even a duct tape joke outfit, than a closet full of multi-colored duct tape jackets, neon board shorts and merely one pair of khaki pants and one golf shirt.

That analogy would be correct if we had an entire city of Stage Centers. But we have one, and soon to be none. Have fun dressing exactly the same the rest of your life. Oklahoma City prefers conservative lack of place, and conservative lack of place is what we will get.

Even the fashion analogy is off. SC is more along the lines of weird designer runway fashion.

To each their own. But keeping with the clothing analogy, I'd rather have a closet full of khaki pants and golf shirts with a few nice slacks and button down shirts, and even a duct tape joke outfit, than a closet full of multi-colored duct tape jackets, neon board shorts and merely one pair of khaki pants and one golf shirt.

We don't have a closet full of Stage Centers. There is only one. In the world.

To each their own. But keeping with the clothing analogy, I'd rather have a closet full of khaki pants and golf shirts with a few nice slacks and button down shirts, and even a duct tape joke outfit, than a closet full of multi-colored duct tape jackets, neon board shorts and merely one pair of khaki pants and one golf shirt.

No one is saying we should trade any of the many unremarkable structures in the city so we can fill our "architectural closet" with a bunch of cutting edge one-of-a-kind works. There is just one of these and no proposals for more. It's not like SC has some sort of rhizome root system that would spread its design throughout the city and disrupt the prevailing homogeneity.

All I really meant to say with the analogy is that Oklahoma City craves sameness and the disdain for Stage Center epitomizes that. It's not just that it is going to be torn down. There are a lot of logistical and financial reasons that it faces demolition. It's the overwhelming sentiment of contempt for it just because it exists at all that really captures the creative climate in OKC. It sends a message to developers that, to be accepted, efforts to innovate and be creative in design should be avoided in the market. If it can not be instantly recognizable with familiar lines, materials, or scale it should go in another market.

Pragmatically, I get why it is being torn down. I think the conversation is beyond that now. What is interesting to me is why so many were so uncomfortable with it being in Oklahoma City to begin with. Sure, it's weird. It's weird because there was a conscious decision made that it wouldn't be like anything else. And it clearly was a mistake to take that approach in Oklahoma City.


Even the fashion analogy is off. SC is more along the lines of weird designer runway fashion.

Agree. It was weird. Personally, I think a little weirdness helps create identity. Oklahoma City's identity, however, seems to be molded by a contempt for the weird or different.

I really don't want to believe that it was a mistake to do something truly "world class" in OKC.

like

No one is saying we should trade any of the many unremarkable structures in the city so we can fill our "architectural closet" with a bunch of cutting edge one-of-a-kind works. There is just one of these and no proposals for more. It's not like SC has some sort of rhizome root system that would spread its design throughout the city and disrupt the prevailing homogeneity.

All I really meant to say with the analogy is that Oklahoma City craves sameness and the disdain for Stage Center epitomizes that. It's not just that it is going to be torn down. There are a lot of logistical and financial reasons that it faces demolition. It's the overwhelming sentiment of contempt for it just because it exists at all that really captures the creative climate in OKC. It sends a message to developers that, to be accepted, efforts to innovate and be creative in design should be avoided in the market. If it can not be instantly recognizable with familiar lines, materials, or scale it should go in another market.

Pragmatically, I get why it is being torn down. I think the conversation is beyond that now. What is interesting to me is why so many were so uncomfortable with it being in Oklahoma City to begin with. Sure, it's weird. It's weird because there was a conscious decision made that it wouldn't be like anything else. And it clearly was a mistake to take that approach in Oklahoma City.



Agree. It was weird. Personally, I think a little weirdness helps create identity. Oklahoma City's identity, however, seems to be molded by a contempt for the weird or different.
like

Sure, it's weird. It's weird because there was a conscious decision made that it wouldn't be like anything else. And it clearly was a mistake to take that approach in Oklahoma City.I keep seeing this refrain, but to understand why such a weird structure came to be here in OKC, you would have to have been a part of the Mayde Mack Mummers scene some 60 years ago (as I was for one brief summer). It was a rather tight-knit group and I was never part of its inner circle, but I did stay close enough to observe them well, since my best friend at the time was vary much an insider of the Mummers although not part of the decision-making group.

For starters, the Mummers group itself could only be called weird. This was almost a decade before the rise of the hippies on the west coast and the Beat Generation, but they had lots in common with those folk -- including the love of shock value. Mack Scism (sp?), the resident director and only paid professional in the group, was in particular fond of it. He was also enamored of theater-in-the-round, so when the Ford Foundation offered to assist community-theater groups around the country, he and the rest of the Mummers leapt to the opportunity to create a venue specifically designed to present that.

It wasn't a "conscious decision ... that it wouldn't be like anything else" so much as it was one of the first attempts to design a theatrical venue to serve only a single purpose. Until then, almost all venues had been multi-purpose, with enough flexibility built into them to permit opera, drama, lectures, and other forms of entertainment. This structure, however, was narrowly focussed on that single aspect -- because that's what Mack wanted, and he had a whim of iron.

Of course, that made the venue almost unusable for any purpose other than theater-in-the-round, so when the fad passed by as fads will do, and Mack moved on to other pastures, the Mummers could no longer sustain the property. They faded away and other groups attempted to make use of it -- with uniform lack of success.

So yes, it's weird -- deliberately so -- but not for the reasons claimed so often in this thread. One might argue that the narrowness of its focus was a significant factor in the demise of the Mummers group and a long period during which OKC had no community theater at all (although such a period never actually took place; the Jewel Box and OCU productions remained active, just not so highly visible). Since Pablo Picasso's sketches and Salvadore Dali's paintings are recognized as art, I have no choice but to agree with those who claim SC is a work of art -- but it's not a success as architecture, where form is supposed to follow function rather than the other way around...

It's been said of photographers that the difference between an amateur and a professional is simply that the professional is willing to dump his failures into the wastebasket and move on. That may also be applicable in this case.

I keep seeing this refrain, but to understand why such a weird structure came to be here in OKC, you would have to have been a part of the Mayde Mack Mummers scene some 60 years ago (as I was for one brief summer). It was a rather tight-knit group and I was never part of its inner circle, but I did stay close enough to observe them well, since my best friend at the time was vary much an insider of the Mummers although not part of the decision-making group.

For starters, the Mummers group itself could only be called weird. This was almost a decade before the rise of the hippies on the west coast and the Beat Generation, but they had lots in common with those folk -- including the love of shock value. Mack Scism (sp?), the resident director and only paid professional in the group, was in particular fond of it. He was also enamored of theater-in-the-round, so when the Ford Foundation offered to assist community-theater groups around the country, he and the rest of the Mummers leapt to the opportunity to create a venue specifically designed to present that.

It wasn't a "conscious decision ... that it wouldn't be like anything else" so much as it was one of the first attempts to design a theatrical venue to serve only a single purpose. Until then, almost all venues had been multi-purpose, with enough flexibility built into them to permit opera, drama, lectures, and other forms of entertainment. This structure, however, was narrowly focussed on that single aspect -- because that's what Mack wanted, and he had a whim of iron.

Of course, that made the venue almost unusable for any purpose other than theater-in-the-round, so when the fad passed by as fads will do, and Mack moved on to other pastures, the Mummers could no longer sustain the property. They faded away and other groups attempted to make use of it -- with uniform lack of success.

So yes, it's weird -- deliberately so -- but not for the reasons claimed so often in this thread. One might argue that the narrowness of its focus was a significant factor in the demise of the Mummers group and a long period during which OKC had no community theater at all (although such a period never actually took place; the Jewel Box and OCU productions remained active, just not so highly visible). Since Pablo Picasso's sketches and Salvadore Dali's paintings are recognized as art, I have no choice but to agree with those who claim SC is a work of art -- but it's not a success as architecture, where form is supposed to follow function rather than the other way around...

It's been said of photographers that the difference between an amateur and a professional is simply that the professional is willing to dump his failures into the wastebasket and move on. That may also be applicable in this case.

Yes. It was a mistake to build a building for this function in Oklahoma City as well. Theater in the round is not as limiting a format as many like to make it out to be here (and obviously, you can just not sell the back quarter if you don't want to do it in the round). I saw many performances there that had no problem adjusting to the format. But clearly there's not enough interest in theater or performance art in this market to begin with to support what people view as a specialty format. Not only was Stage Center unfamiliar territory for Oklahoma City in terms of its design, but it was also a big risk that Oklahoma City would ever support the function of the building long term. But, as you pointed out, it was the vision of people that many in Oklahoma City would have thought weird anyway. So it was destined to not fit in.

And I think Stage Center's form in concept is an amazing one for a community theater. I certainly went to many functioning performances and art shows there, and it was cool because every element of the experience was about the art, including the building and the way you worked your way through it. It was not just a box office, cramped plywood lobby, and uncomfortable theater where the walls feel like they are squeezing the space like a lot of theaters that serve the same function in other markets. Its infrastructure and placement ultimately failed it, but the form itself complimented its function in a special way that you rarely see in small theaters.

I really don't want to believe that it was a mistake to do something truly "world class" in OKC.

Again, it depends on your definition of "world class." For some, it's what other folks say it is; for others, it's what their own eyeballs tell them.

We don't have a closet full of Stage Centers. There is only one. In the world.

And there might be a reason for that.

But clearly there's not enough interest in theater or performance art in this market to begin with to support what people view as a specialty format.

That may have been true about the Stage Center but it's not true about the OKC market. The Reduxion Theater has been very popular and successful with a "theater in the round" concept.

OKC has a VERY active theater scene. Lack of theater isn't the threat to SC. I think too many locals fall prey to the outdated stereotype that OKc doesn't support the arts. Most who say that don't care to look at what is happening, and sadly don't enjoy what is actually available.

OKC doesn't support the arts?

https://www.okc.gov/maps/civic_center/gallery/then_now.jpg (https://www.okc.gov/maps/civic_center/)

Wasn't true, isn't true.