^^^what David said. It seems OKC really does have an active art scene, more so than most cities, or so I've been told.

OKC does have a very active art scene. One with which I am involved. But it is not more active than "most cities". It certainly supports traditional and more familiar arts well. When it gets a little weird (something you don't often see at the 2500 seat civic center shown above), the support is marginal. This is true in "most cities", but here it goes to a level where it becomes a little hard to find the support for a facility like Stage Center (clearly).

So, again, I am not saying we don't have an art scene or that we don't have cool architecture. But, as a whole, we just don't have much support or, in some cases, much tolerance for art or design that is unfamiliar. More than anything, it's a matter of scale. Even if we had relatively greater support for innovative arts as a proportion of our overall arts community, it still is not enough for something as unique as Stage Center to survive. We tried it and it failed, so it's hard to argue against that. More modest settings like the Reduxion Theater and its productions of reworked classics is much more our steam and something that can be viable. Reduxion is a good example of what is typical even in large markets when it comes to community theater. Stage Center represents something that was a bold idea even in greater theater markets, let alone Oklahoma City. However, it is nice to know there was a time when Oklahoma City had a few people with money not scared of being bold, even as misguided as it may have been.

The stereotype that OKC doesn't support the arts is likely because it is behind Tulsa in this area. Tulsa is also close enough where it is able to steal a lot of events that would otherwise be in OKC. On its own, I think OKC has its strengths and weaknesses but overall the arts support is probably what you would expect in a market this size in this region of the country. Question is, would Stage Center have been able to survive in Tulsa if it was built there instead? I have my doubts. Now I think it would definitely work somewhere like Dallas, Austin, Portland, Seattle, SF, etc.

The stereotype that OKC doesn't support the arts is likely because it is behind Tulsa in this area.

And I'd even question that stereotype. Probably true 20 years ago, but not today. My experience has been that it is better in OKC, at least on a local arts level.

And I'd even question that stereotype. Probably true 20 years ago, but not today. My experience has been that it is better in OKC, at least on a local arts level.

It depends on if you include live music as part of the arts scene. Excluding live music, I would say the match-up is much closer. However, Tulsa's live music scene is significantly ahead of OKC, especially the more "artsy" genres.

It depends on if you include live music as part of the arts scene. Excluding live music, I would say the match-up is much closer. However, Tulsa's live music scene is significantly ahead of OKC, especially the more "artsy" genres.

I'd definitely include the music scenes, but I am talking strictly local, community based artists. Music scenes are more fluid, of course, as well.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3695/12890938863_514bfd9dce_c.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7427/12891269724_353ec470f7_c.jpg
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2863/12891266004_d22be67513_c.jpg
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2862/12891262804_e371ffcd47_c.jpg
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3715/12891259324_541dd1fec5_c.jpg
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3705/12891256004_1ee1f3c2e3_c.jpg
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3681/12890828975_d6f371d9c7_c.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7370/12891248984_e6b0416b55_c.jpg
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7438/12891245324_359847dd9d_c.jpg
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3723/12890908143_ba63bcb24e_c.jpg
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3694/12890900063_4b36ddb0f4_c.jpg

Viability, economic feasibility to determine fate of Stage Center | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/viability-economic-feasibility-to-determine-fate-of-stage-center/article/3939506)

Is the stage center tower thread closed? I havent heard anything for some time about whats next, like when is demolition to start,etc.

Nice pics PluPan. They truly show that we need to transform this urban camping ground.

Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk

Is the stage center tower thread closed? I havent heard anything for some time about whats next, like when is demolition to start,etc.

The appeal's meeting to the demolition of the Stage Center is this Thursday. Nothing else about the tower will be announced until Stage Center's fate is sealed.

Bring this eyesore DOWN.

Steve posted on twitter that the appeal to save the stage center has been denied. Bye bye stage center.

The appeal's meeting to the demolition of the Stage Center is this Thursday. Nothing else about the tower will be announced until Stage Center's fate is sealed.

Guess it's coming down. Hoping they can salvage some of it...

Steve posted on twitter that the appeal to save the stage center has been denied. Bye bye stage center.

SWEET! So what's next? I mean, how long do we have to wait til demo?

Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk

Last attempt to save Stage Center fails | News OK (http://newsok.com/last-attempt-to-save-stage-center-fails/article/3940588)

From that article:


Meanwhile, for the first time in the three-year battle over Stage Center, civic leader James Pickel revealed that Oklahoma Contemporary, formerly known as Arts Center, looked at making Stage Center its new home. Oklahoma Contemporary is a major beneficiary of Chris Keesee, whose Kirkpatrick Family Fund also owned the building and land until selling it last year to Williams. Oklahoma Contemporary bought property at NW 11 and Broadway for its future home.

Pickel said the studies looking at moving Oklahoma Contemporary to Stage Center showed the cost of the project would range between $30 million and $40 million.

That cost estimate is pretty telling. I'm all for saving the building if there was a chance of it being usable, but that is a pretty steep hill to climb for anyone who might have wanted to.

and the legacy continues:

A Tale of Two Cities - The Architect's Newspaper (http://www.archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=7129)

and the legacy continues:

A Tale of Two Cities - The Architect's Newspaper (http://www.archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=7129)

And this comment to the article balances the romanticized sentiment with reason...


Philip Morris (https://www.facebook.com/morriscivitas) · Birmingham, Alabama (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Birmingham-Alabama/109434842408576)
This reminds me of the old term: "All comparisons are specious". Good to see what Tulsa is doing in preserving its earlier buildings. But the Johansen building was problematic from the day it was finished. Over-specialized, not responsive to change -- an object. Its planned demolition should be a critique of a certain strain of modern design, not the city where it was built.

And this comment to the article balances the romanticized sentiment with reason...

That is great, and I couldn't agree more.

And this comment to the article balances the romanticized sentiment with reason...

In this case, maybe. But it's not happening in a vacuum. Poor planning and quick to demolish is our legacy. It's what we're known for. I think it has significantly improved, but we still make so many lateral moves and don't seem to look at the big picture or how things interact when it comes to development. Stage Center is just the same ole situation for OKC.

By no means do I advocate a demolish-first, ask-question-later method of city planning and development. However, this is my question to all hardcore preservationists: How long do we protect historic and/or unique structures that are essentially abandoned, unused and/or neglected? Forever, no matter how valuable the real estate is and how unlikely the prospect of restoration of that structure?

The value of such a "historic" or "unique" structure, at some point, has to be reflected in the attention it gets before its demise is threatened.

By no means do I advocate a demolish-first, ask-question-later method of city planning and development. However, this is my question to all hardcore preservationists: How long do we protect historic and/or unique structures that are essentially abandoned, unused and/or neglected? Forever, no matter how valuable the real estate is and how unlikely the prospect of restoration of that structure?

Depends on the structure and it's value. The First National Building should never be torn down, even if it sits abandoned for a century. Never, never, never.



The value of such a "historic" or "unique" structure, at some point, has to be reflected in the attention it gets before its demise is threatened.

Absolutely false.

"Absolutely"? That's awfully absolute for an opinion.

"Absolutely"? That's awfully absolute for an opinion.

I'm an opinionated guy.

I'm an opinionated guy.

Absolutely! ;-)

and the legacy continues:

A Tale of Two Cities - The Architect's Newspaper (http://www.archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=7129)

Well Steve did a fantastic job of blowing that article up. Well done, sir.

The difference with the first national center is that is can be functional for different purposes. The SC did not even work as a theater. I used to go to plays there in high school. It was too small and poorly laid out for a theater. I could not hold the number of people that attend my daughter's high school performances.

In this case, maybe. But it's not happening in a vacuum. Poor planning and quick to demolish is our legacy. It's what we're known for. I think it has significantly improved, but we still make so many lateral moves and don't seem to look at the big picture or how things interact when it comes to development. Stage Center is just the same ole situation for OKC.

I once again challenge that this is OKC's "legacy" and that we are in any way unique when it comes to demolitions and urban renewal.

It happened everywhere and still continues to happen and no one has provided any proof that the situation was/is worse in OKC than most American cities.


I'm beginning to think this constant self-flagellation does nothing but perpetuate negativity about Oklahoma City, which isn't necessarily deserved.

I once again challenge that this is OKC's "legacy" and that we are in any way unique when it comes to demolitions and urban renewal.

It happened everywhere and still continues to happen and no one has provided any proof that the situation was/is worse in OKC than most American cities.


I'm beginning to think this constant self-flagellation does nothing but perpetuate negativity about Oklahoma City, which isn't necessarily deserved.

++++1

I once again challenge that this is OKC's "legacy" and that we are in any way unique when it comes to demolitions and urban renewal.

It happened everywhere and still continues to happen and no one has provided any proof that the situation was/is worse in OKC than most American cities.


I'm beginning to think this constant self-flagellation does nothing but perpetuate negativity about Oklahoma City, which isn't necessarily deserved.

Pete, you continue to be a voice of rational and balanced thought. Thanks.

There's something on your nose...right there...

For the record - since tone is difficult to detect on a message board - that was a 100% good-natured jab.

I once again challenge that this is OKC's "legacy" and that we are in any way unique when it comes to demolitions and urban renewal.

It happened everywhere and still continues to happen and no one has provided any proof that the situation was/is worse in OKC than most American cities.


I'm beginning to think this constant self-flagellation does nothing but perpetuate negativity about Oklahoma City, which isn't necessarily deserved.

Pete, this isn't so much a legacy of bad preservation and demolition as much as it is a very distinct legacy of cultural blandness and conservative thinking. The problem that's inherent here is that you can't empirically measure the blandness of an object, but I'd recommend starting with a look at the proposed OG+E Small Tower. As I recall you stating upon your return to OKC that you'd live in the Putnam City area, I have a feeling we might not always agree with regards to cultural blandness. And that's okay.

But this is important, and to deny OKC's legacy of cultural blandness is needlessly antithetical to your rigorous reporting and advocacy work and I don't share your desire to emphatically talk over the demolition cries. OKC tore down 2,000 structures in our central city - you're saying that isn't unique? We were late to the urban renewal craze and sought to compensate for that by doing it bigger and better. Typical conservative oily attitude.

We are still tearing down quality buildings for parking lots, to give Hargreaves their desired blank slate, and to whitewash the urban landscape of evocative landmarks. I have mad respect for you as always, but I'm not looking to get my nose any browner than it has already gotten by working in Cleveland. :p

But this is important, and to deny OKC's legacy of cultural blandness is needlessly antithetical to your rigorous reporting and advocacy work and I don't share your desire to emphatically talk over the demolition cries. OKC tore down 2,000 structures in our central city - you're saying that isn't unique? We were late to the urban renewal craze and sought to compensate for that by doing it bigger and better. Typical conservative oily attitude.

Urban renewal is not unique to OKC. In fact, the only cities in America where that didn't happen in wholesale fashion were cities that were too broke to do it in the 60s or where an urban population has always existed. In the 10 years after the Great Jacksonville Fire in 1901 there were 10,000 buildings constructed in downtown Jacksonville. Today there are only about 100 of them left. 9,900 of them destroyed in the 50', 60s, and 70s - 5X what has been destroyed in OKC, and that doesn't even count the 2,368 buildings destroyed in the fire itself.

Pete, this isn't so much a legacy of bad preservation and demolition as much as it is a very distinct legacy of cultural blandness and conservative thinking. The problem that's inherent here is that you can't empirically measure the blandness of an object, but I'd recommend starting with a look at the proposed OG+E Small Tower. As I recall you stating upon your return to OKC that you'd live in the Putnam City area, I have a feeling we might not always agree with regards to cultural blandness. And that's okay.

But this is important, and to deny OKC's legacy of cultural blandness is needlessly antithetical to your rigorous reporting and advocacy work and I don't share your desire to emphatically talk over the demolition cries. OKC tore down 2,000 structures in our central city - you're saying that isn't unique? We were late to the urban renewal craze and sought to compensate for that by doing it bigger and better. Typical conservative oily attitude.

We are still tearing down quality buildings for parking lots, to give Hargreaves their desired blank slate, and to whitewash the urban landscape of evocative landmarks. I have mad respect for you as always, but I'm not looking to get my nose any browner than it has already gotten by working in Cleveland. :p

OKC's cultural blandness is largely related to the Pei Plan + the brain drain. That cannot be disputed. Imagine OKC today had there not have been a Pei Plan. Imagine still having the Baum Building, the Criterion theater, and the Biltmore hotel. Imagine the Criterion theater as the state's premier live music venue, being the go-to theater for big name acts instead of Cain's in Tulsa. Imagine all the infill that was torn out being revitalized into housing, bars, restaurants, and retail. I can picture a pretty amazing city full of culture and character. Take a look at downtown Memphis for instance. Memphis is a city that by and large avoided urban renewal. That city has a lot of deep-rooted problems but cultural blandness and lack of character isn't one of them. It seems like OKC development has long been plagued by lack of long-term thinking and false assumptions.

OKC's cultural blandness is largely related to the Pei Plan + the brain drain. That cannot be disputed.

I think OKC cultural blandness comes from the fact that for the last 60 years our 'pillars of the community' all come from the oil industry. If you look at all the historic buildings everyone loved so much they were built by people who had backgrounds outside the oil industry, even if they later made fortunes in oil. Today's oil industry leaders can't design a building worth crap. Look how many buildings Kerr McGee reclad and I know people are in love with Devon tower, but come on - it is about as bland and detail lacking as it can get. Just stand on Sheridan and compare it side by side with the Colcord Building - its not even close to the same level of detail.

I think OKC cultural blandness comes from the fact that for the last 60 years our 'pillars of the community' all come from the oil industry. If you look at all the historic buildings everyone loved so much they were built by people who had backgrounds outside the oil industry, even if they later made fortunes in oil. Today's oil industry leaders can't design a building worth crap. Look how many buildings Kerr McGee reclad and I know people are in love with Devon tower, but come on - it is about as bland and detail lacking as it can get. Just stand on Sheridan and compare it side by side with the Colcord Building - its not even close to the same level of detail.

I personally like the Devon Tower. It is a modern building that makes the skyline look more 21st century. Is it comparable to the art deco of the early 20th century? Absolutely not but I think it has completely transformed OKC's skyline for the better. Prior to the Devon Tower, OKC's skyline was rather pathetic compared to Tulsa's.

OKC's cultural blandness is largely related to the Pei Plan + the brain drain. That cannot be disputed. Imagine OKC today had there not have been a Pei Plan. Imagine still having the Baum Building, the Criterion theater, and the Biltmore hotel. Imagine the Criterion theater as the state's premier live music venue, being the go-to theater for big name acts instead of Cain's in Tulsa. Imagine all the infill that was torn out being revitalized into housing, bars, restaurants, and retail. I can picture a pretty amazing city full of culture and character. Take a look at downtown Memphis for instance. Memphis is a city that by and large avoided urban renewal. That city has a lot of deep-rooted problems but cultural blandness and lack of character isn't one of them. It seems like OKC development has long been plagued by lack of long-term thinking and false assumptions.

It's not about three or four buildings. That speaks directly to Pete's point which I feel misses the mark. OKC is a city that deep down reminisces about Crossroads Mall just as much as back when Capitol Hill was a vibrant retail hub. Inherent with such a broad spectrum, the problem is the collective narrative is missing the vital connection between the two. The ironic thing is as much as people miss Capitol Hill and Crossroads, nobody really loves going shopping in Moore these days. These things are all connected. Time has marched on and one shopping area succeeds the one before it, soon we will be shopping in Wayne Payne wherever that is. This was originally a tent city and we continue to treat it accordingly, neglecting to notice how architecture has evolved and devolved over time.

Cultural blandness is how garden variety corrupt politicians continuously dupe us Okies with bad plans and poor logic, and the city hall apparatus has long been stuck between the decision making prowess of the county and state. I am talking about phenomena that is unique to OKC and not Charlotte or Jacksonville. Every city has a unique local ethic that is reflected in it's city planning and urban design. Some are more distinct than others - ours is becoming less distinct which is exactly the point.

Cultural blandness is how garden variety corrupt politicians continuously dupe us Okies with bad plans and poor logic, and the city hall apparatus has long been stuck between the decision making prowess of the county and state. I am talking about phenomena that is unique to OKC and not Charlotte or Jacksonville. Every city has a unique local ethic that is reflected in it's city planning and urban design. Some are more distinct than others - ours is becoming less distinct which is exactly the point.

Ironically, RussianSam picked OKC for his paper model because of the variety of styles in OKC.

I don't necessarily see a problem with reminiscing about Crossroads Mall. Shopping malls were a huge part of culture during the last quarter of the 20th Century and have just as much of a place in history as neighborhoods like Capitol Hill. In Charlotte, you hear a lot of people talk about Eastland Mall, their version of Crossroads. The difference is the retail corridor in Moore is by most standards inferior to what Crossroads Mall was. In Charlotte, Eastland Mall was superseded by better and more vibrant lifestyle centers. As for urban development, Charlotte is around 20-25 years ahead of OKC.

I once again challenge that this is OKC's "legacy" and that we are in any way unique when it comes to demolitions and urban renewal.

It happened everywhere and still continues to happen and no one has provided any proof that the situation was/is worse in OKC than most American cities.


I'm beginning to think this constant self-flagellation does nothing but perpetuate negativity about Oklahoma City, which isn't necessarily deserved.

I think it largely has to do with how far many of those cities who suffered the same scars have come in conjunction with the struggles we've had in erasing our own. It's still a part of OKC's landscape because you can still see it and it still continues and there is little to no organized effort that has a directive to reverse the scars of urban renewal. We have had some success with very fragmented efforts by select developers who see the value in restoration and recognizes the scarcity of character left, but there is very little "top down" planning in this area. I think the Tulsa comparison is a specious one in that Oklahoma City does have more actually happening at this time, but there is valid point made in highlighting the disparity in city planning efforts. We have mostly been officially focusing on new assets in our efforts to overcome urban renewal scars, which obviously has to be part of the mix. But I think there stills is an apparent lack of consciousness in city planning when it comes to existing assets that hinders the broader renewal efforts of today. It has happened independently, which is admirable on the part of those developers and, imo, those efforts have contributed to this round of renewal as much as any of the major projects that may have dismissed the value current structures.

Other markets did indeed suffer consequences of urban renewal, but many markets have also made conscious efforts to mitigate repeating those consequences this time around by including restoration as part of official city planning. Maybe I have missed it and that legacy is no longer deserving, but I have rarely heard of any official efforts in the core to encourage restoration over demolition as part of a planned effort to avoid further demolition of current city assets. It doesn't even get much lip service.

Ironically, RussianSam picked OKC for his paper model because of the variety of styles in OKC.

RussianSam is a whole lot smarter and has a more educated architectural palate than most who pontificate here on that subject when they know virtually nothing compared to RS.

Ironically, RussianSam picked OKC for his paper model because of the variety of styles in OKC.

When did Ilya say that?

Was Stage Center's fate cast with 1968 unveiling? | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/was-stage-centers-fate-cast-with-1968-unveiling/article/3941906)

One of the best columns Steve's ever done on any topic. Fair take on all sides. It's an unvarnished postmortem.

I suspect that future generations will be as harsh in its judgment of current leadership as we now are of those who tore down iconic landmarks like the Criterion Theater in the 1970s.

I disagree with this quote from Steve, I think he's injecting his own feelings in here.

I think that was a fair and reasoned conclusion from him.

I think that was a fair and reasoned conclusion from him.

The demolition of the Criterion was before my time. Do you think it ever generated the negative reactions that SC did?

See, I would say that expecting us NOT to be judged harshly for it is an example of letting your personal feelings for the building take over. Love the building or hate it, there is zero question that the demolition will live in infamy for many, especially in the local and national architectural communities.

Are you talking nationally or locally? I think it may be judged more harshly nationally by those in the small minority of architectural enthusiasts who even know it exists. And even then, only because it was one of a few examples of a short-lived minor movement.

Locally, it will be judged by whether you liked it or not. I don't see its demolition being judged harshly by future generations mainly because it has so little support currently. Why would you expect there to be more in the future? The vast majority outside of this online community don't even know The Criterion even existed and, while SC was architecturally more significant, it will at some point in the future only be remembered in textbooks and by a handful of OKC historians. I think our current leadership can rest assured they won't be judged harshly by future generations.

there is zero question that the demolition will live in infamy for many, especially in the local and national architectural communities.

I totally agree with this (see above post). Steve said "future generations", I felt that included everyone, not just architectural communities.

When did Ilya say that?

I can only assume he said it through his host interpreter.

Russian Man?s Miniature Model of Oklahoma City Opens Door to Creativity World Forum and First Trip to America | Business Wire (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101104006513/en/Russian-Man%E2%80%99s-Miniature-Model-Oklahoma-City-Opens#.Ux8dHrWYYfI)


“After much research, he chose Oklahoma City because it has a good variety of architectural styles, it was small enough to build, and there was a wealth of photographic information available due to Oklahoma City’s rich blogosphere,” said Dennis Wells, architect with Miles Associates. “The model has amazing detail and accuracy.”

I totally agree with this (see above post). Steve said "future generations", I felt that included everyone, not just architectural communities.

If future generations are nostalgic for it, it is because they see it through the eyes of 'golden-age syndrome'. It is the same reason I wish I still have my 1971 Mercury Capri. I remember all the good times had in it, but in reality - I pushed it more than I drove it and I had to spend a good portion of my income just to keep it going. It broke down everywhere on me but I have to think about that to remember it. What I don't have to think about is how much fun it was to drive when it actually ran.

http://www.ridelust.com/wp-content/uploads/tn_M09-1971-Capri-2000-us.jpg

The demolition of the Criterion was before my time. Do you think it ever generated the negative reactions that SC did?I was here at the time, and at that time it did not generate so much negative reaction. However "ever" is a long long time, and over the years its demolition has generated much more negative reaction than we've yet seen with regard to Stage Center.

At that time, The Daily Oklahoman was 100% behind urban renewal and pushing hard for the Pei Plan. The Internet was still a couple of decades in the future, and the PC itself didn't arrive on the scene until a couple of years after the Biltmore went down (the first IBM PC, the model that made the industry viable, didn't appear until 1981). Thus at the time no platform similar to OKCTalk existed with which opponents of the renewal could make themselves widely heard.

My take-away from Steve's article is mainly focused on this bit:


I admit I grew up in Oklahoma City not understanding Stage Center.

It took a meeting with Johansen himself, back in 2008, to fully appreciate Stage Center and understand what it represents for not just the architectural world, but also for Oklahoma City.

If it takes a meeting with the architect himself before you can appreciate the building, no wonder it is on its way with not much protest. Compare this to the Indian Temple Building where (if I am remembering correctly, someone correct me if I am wrong) Preservation Oklahoma only tabled their objections when their funding and business partnerships were threatened.

My take-away from Steve's article is mainly focused on this bit:



If it takes a meeting with the architect himself before you can appreciate the building, no wonder it is on its way with not much protest. Compare this to the Indian Temple Building where (if I am remembering correctly, someone correct me if I am wrong) Preservation Oklahoma only tabled their objections when their funding and business partnerships were threatened.

And Board of Adjustment members lost their positions plus Sandridge threatened to move out of downtown - a bluff that should have been called on the spot.

http://newsok.com/sandridge-energy-threatens-to-leave-downtown-oklahoma-city-over-resistance-to-headquarters-plans/article/3469383

I was here at the time, and at that time it did not generate so much negative reaction.

Jim, I was referring to the building itself, not its demolition.

See, I would say that expecting us NOT to be judged harshly for it is an example of letting your personal feelings for the building take over. Love the building or hate it, there is zero question that the demolition will live in infamy for many, especially in the local and national architectural communities.

And as with most things and people that are gone, it will be romanticized all out of proportion.

And as with most things and people that are gone, it will be romanticized all out of proportion.

Whatever.

It was cool place and something special and unique, not only to OKC, but to the theater world. I know a lot of people who performed there and held art shows there that feel the same. I have long conceded that it was never a place for most people in Oklahoma City, but it's romanticism by people who truly had great times there will not be out of proportion for them. This has become such a bizarre discussion where people have a deep contempt for those that did in fact enjoy it when it was a functioning theater that offered a one of a kind experience. Now we're going to foster a contempt for people who will remember it fondly? So stupid.