I understand what Pete is saying, and Just The Facts presented an excellent example.

I look back at things in the same way. When you don't have it anymore, you naturally only remember or discuss the positives. When a loved one dies, "Jim was a great man. I remember the day he taught me to fish like it was yesterday." We forget about how much we hated how he cooked or left the refrigerator door open.

Meant my comment in a general way, not as a dig on Stage Center.

I've never been a proponent of it's demolition.

I would agree with BDP that for some SC haters - at least as far as this discussion is concerned - contempt for the building has veered into the territory of contempt for anyone who thinks it is/was an interesting and worthwhile building. But that happens with most preservation debates. And for the record, I don't think Pete was doing this. He has been pretty consistent in his position that pretty much EVERYTHING gets the rose-colored-glasses treatment when looked at in the rearview mirror.

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)

Here I'll help fill in the rest of the story for you: Ilya discovered Doug Loudenback's photographic directory of every single extant building, which is a unique resource for any world city. Cumulatively the OKC blogosphere is insane, I would know.

But your effort to use this as proof that OKC, a city of conservative office towers and ranch homes, has a vast and diverse architectural heritage is tenuous AT BEST, although at least we have Jacksonville beat (not saying much).

Here I'll help fill in the rest of the story for you: Ilya discovered Doug Loudenback's photographic directory of every single extant building, which is a unique resource for any world city. Cumulatively the OKC blogosphere is insane, I would know.

But your effort to use this as proof that OKC, a city of conservative office towers and ranch homes, has a vast and diverse architectural heritage is tenuous AT BEST, although at least we have Jacksonville beat (not saying much).

Feel the OKC love!

Jim, I was referring to the building itself, not its demolition.So was I. Many of us called it "Tinker Toys for Adults" but most of OKC simply ignored it completely.

I dislike Stage Center because it is bad urbanism, so in that light I do have contempt for people who support bad urbanism in a supposed urban environment. It doesn't matter if it is Stage Center, the Lincoln Center or the Centre Pompidou, bad urbanism is bad urbanism. Heck, the whole modern movement it was born out of is bad urbanism. I support building great neighborhoods and cities where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts - which is a foreign concept to those who only want to look at the parts. For me it isn't how cool, unusual, or unique Stage Center is, it is the simple question of - does Stage Center help build and promote a walkable, livable, sustainable, and human-scaled neighborhood and city? After 40 years the obvious answer to that question is No. It discourages walkability, hasn't promoted adjacent growth (I could even argue that its mere presence has discourage adjacent growth), and sapped the financial resources of every art tenant that tried to call it home. It has been a cancer on the city but people seem to love it because its 'our cancer'. Sorry - that isn't a good enough reason for me.

So anyhow - agree or disagree, that is my take on the subject.

Wow. Contemptuous.

Stage Center. Lincoln Center. Georges Pompidou Centre. Those are world class. Those contribute, I don't care what transect model you worship before bed. This is about people and values, not rigid conformity. Kerry - within your rigid ideology, what role does humanity play beyond just occupying the buildings with no setback?

I always respect your contributions. I'm not trying to bottle up your contempt and throw it back, but rather have a meaningful dialog and ask the right questions.

Accepting buildings like the Stage Center is like being a little wrong on purpose. Who does that? There are World Class performing arts centers all over the world that are built with the principle of good urbanism. Tell the truth Spartan - if someone proposed Stage Center in downtown OKC today would you support it?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Radio_City_Music_Hall_1.JPG

http://www.venere.com/img/blog/paris-opera-house.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a49/DougLoudenback/movies/vsp3_criterion_1922.jpg

JTF, obviously I won't convert you, but I just don't think you can apply this type of approach retroactively to reach 100% determination on whether an existing building is fit to be retained in a built environment. I would of course never support such land use today in new downtown construction (in the middle of a park might be a different story), but at some point if a building is important enough for whatever reason you excuse the poor urbanism. By your measure the Alamo should be demolished. So should nearly everything Frank Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier built, and most of Washington D.C.. If we tore down every building in OKC that is an example of bad (or anti-) urbanism, there would be about a dozen buildings left and 619 miles of empty prairie.

Obviously you and I disagree on the architectural merit/importance of this particular building (and I am in an extreme minority), but I'm sorry, it's possible for SOME existing buildings to transcend that method of measurement.

Now, do I support encouraging and even requiring good urbanist practice in the design and building of all future structures in downtown? Of course.

Le Corbusier - I hate that guy. If run into him in the after-life words are going to be said and groins are going to get kicked. Then I'll use IM Pei like a baseball bat to beat him. :)

Will Stage Center be Demolished This Next Month? | News OK (http://newsok.com/will-stage-center-be-demolished-this-next-month/article/4922351)

Link I posted in the Stage Center tower thread.

From catch22; fence looks to be completely up now:


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/sc062114.jpg

I hope they can save the trees.

I was just thinking that. I hate when old trees get removed. Something you can't simply replace.

Pretty sure the trees are going to go. I'm not sure if they can be transplanted or not. We can move some pretty big trees these days. As for keeping them, one of the short comings of Stage Center is that didn't have any sidewalk interaction on contribute to a street-wall - 2 key ingredients for walkability. For a new structure to rise above the urbanism of Stage Center those trees are going to have to come down - otherwise we might as well keep Stage Center. 16 new trees were planted in the same area as part of P180 so it will just take some time.

Wow, seeing the fence in the photo is suddenly making this all too real

We walked past the Stage Center on our way to the Myriad Gatdens for the Sunday concert. My husband, who grew up in NYC suddenly said, "This is sad. It wouldn't happen in Portland or Seattle. We just haven't come far enough for people to value a building like this.

For me, it is like saying goodbye to an old friend. I fell in love with the Stage Center the first time I saw it when we moved here. To me, it was the only beacon of hope in a otherwise desolate downtown OKC, a sign that maybe there were people here with vision. And now we don't have enough vision to preserve it. Sad.

Pretty sure the trees are going to go. I'm not sure if they can be transplanted or not. We can move some pretty big trees these days. As for keeping them, one of the short comings of Stage Center is that didn't have any sidewalk interaction on contribute to a street-wall - 2 key ingredients for walkability. For a new structure to rise above the urbanism of Stage Center those trees are going to have to come down - otherwise we might as well keep Stage Center. 16 new trees were planted in the same area as part of P180 so it will just take some time.

One of the things that struck me from the photo is how they had enough room that the construction group decided they can proceed without blocking the sidewalk and at least part of the street, which seems par for the course on any of our recent downtown construction work.

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2925/14494881473_32e745c3e9_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/o5S4gx)
Stage Center (https://flic.kr/p/o5S4gx) by lazio85 (https://www.flickr.com/people//), on Flickr

To me, it was the only beacon of hope in a otherwise desolate downtown OKC, a sign that maybe there were people here with vision.

Yeah, people here are pretty stupid, huh!

Wow, seeing the fence in the photo is suddenly making this all too real

I know. I wasn't sad to hear it's being demolished, but seeing the fence is kinda sad.

This sucks. Just get it over with I guess. Will be real interesting to keep tabs on this and see how soon people start saying, I wish we wouldn't have torn it down.

This sucks. Just get it over with I guess. Will be real interesting to keep tabs on this and see how soon people start saying, I wish we wouldn't have torn it down.

Some of us are saying it now. Did you have your stopwatch ready?

One of the things that struck me from the photo is how they had enough room that the construction group decided they can proceed without blocking the sidewalk and at least part of the street, which seems par for the course on any of our recent downtown construction work.

That is a darn good observation and is a good indicator of just how out of place this structure is in downtown OKC. Everyone wants to rip civic leaders from the 1960s for not supporting it - well hells bells - maybe they were trying to keep downtown urban - the same dammed fight many of us are still fighting today. Maybe if they would have won back in 1969 OKC might have just stayed a little more urban and we wouldn't have inherited the mess we have today. If this building was being proposed today every single person on OKCTalk (except Poppsy, Rover, ou48A, BoulderSooner, and a few others) would universally condemn it on every measure of good urbanism.

This sucks. Just get it over with I guess. Will be real interesting to keep tabs on this and see how soon people start saying, I wish we wouldn't have torn it down.

I agree. Future generations will look at this shortsightedness like people today look at the Baum building and the Criterion Theatre. We are demolishing OKC's one unique structure...for what? A "tower" that would probably fit in just as well on NW Expressway as downtown. Hopefully the Main/Hudson tower is announced soon to help lessen this blow.

That is a darn good observation and is a good indicator of just how out of place this structure is in downtown OKC. Everyone wants to rip civic leaders from the 1960s for not supporting it - well hells bells - maybe they were trying to keep downtown urban - the same dammed fight many of us are still fighting today. Maybe if they would have won back in 1969 OKC might have just stayed a little more urban and we wouldn't have inherited the mess we have today. If this building was being proposed today every single person on OKCTalk (except Poppsy, Rover, ou48A, BoulderSooner, and a few others) would universally condemn it on every measure of good urbanism.

Not everyone judges everything solely on new urbanism criteria. While I am a big proponent of that criteria in general, I'm not an ideologue either. I wish this structure were saved. I think OKC is making a mistake. While the new tower may better meet new urbanism criteria, it'll likely be similar to the types of buildings everywhere else in the world. There's something to be said for Stage Center because it made OKC a little more... unique. And that which is unique to a city is what gives a city character.

I agree. Future generations will look at this shortsightedness like people today look at the Baum building and the Criterion Theatre. We are demolishing OKC's one unique structure...for what? A "tower" that would probably fit in just as well on NW Expressway as downtown. Hopefully the Main/Hudson tower is announced soon to help lessen this blow.I agree

Not arguing that the SC may be as architecturally significant as the Baum and Criterion, but it will never be thought of in the same vein as those two except perhaps by architecture historians and aficionados . First of all, the styles of the Baum and Criterion are much more widely understood and appreciated whereby the SC has never evoked the same sense of warmth and broad appeal. Secondly, it is hard for many to remember great experiences in the SC. Even if you never went into the Baum or Criterion you could probably imagine yourself doing so and how it is a shame you didn't. The exteriors created more anticipation of a quality experience within. I doubt many people feel or felt the urge to go inside the SC, but rather may be amused or appreciative of its unusual shape, colors, textures and materials on the exterior, much as they might appreciate art they don't exactly like.

Future generations will look at this shortsightedness like people today look at the Baum building and the Criterion Theatre.

Or they might just say the people of OKC got snookered by egomaniacal architect, but at least they got rid of it at some point.

Or they might just say the people of OKC got snookered by egomaniacal architect, but at least they got rid of it at some point.

But I doubt it. There just aren't enough people in OKC who "get" the Stage Center.....yet. Or how cool it is to have something that unique in a city of this size. Just wait until its gone and there's a little office building with a giant parking garage, neither of any particular architectural interest, sitting on that lot. Meh.

Substitute "Bartlesville" for "OKC" and substitute "figured out how to re-purpose it" for "got rid of it" and you just described Frank Lloyd Wright and Price Tower, which sat unused (except for as storage) because of engineering and configuration problems for nearly 20 years between 1981 and 2000.

Substitute "Bartlesville" for "OKC" and substitute "figured out how to re-purpose it" for "got rid of it" and you just described Frank Lloyd Wright and Price Tower, which sat unused (except for as storage) because of engineering and configuration problems for nearly 20 years between 1981 and 2000.

Apples and oranges

First national tower. Is a better compare to price. And you and I both know that is price tower was in OKC. It would have been renovated by now also.

Fact is that stage was non functional (even for it's stated purpose).


Then add to that the fact that lots of people think it was/is an eye sore and you get demo

Have you actually been inside of Price Tower? You almost have to enter the elevator sideways. He basically took plans for the mile-high tower called The Illinois (which he designed in the '20s and which was never built) and scaled them down for Price Tower, disregarding whether it was a good fit for the application, which it was not. So important stuff like elevator vestibules became too small to really function correctly, but screw you, you're getting a Wright design. The difference, though, is that he had a willing client in Price who only cared that he was getting a Wright building, and was willing to let Wright build whatever he wanted. That is how Wright preferred it.

Also, you have a lot more faith in OKC's evaluation of architecture. If Price Tower were here and unoccupied in the sixties or seventies, it very well might have met the wrecking ball.

Not everyone judges everything solely on new urbanism criteria. While I am a big proponent of that criteria in general, I'm not an ideologue either. I wish this structure were saved. I think OKC is making a mistake. While the new tower may better meet new urbanism criteria, it'll likely be similar to the types of buildings everywhere else in the world. There's something to be said for Stage Center because it made OKC a little more... unique. And that which is unique to a city is what gives a city character.
"Like",

Have you actually been inside of Price Tower? You almost have to enter the elevator sideways. He basically took plans for the mile-high tower called The Illinois (which he designed in the '20s and which was never built) and scaled them down for Price Tower, disregarding whether it was a good fit for the application, which it was not. So important stuff like elevator vestibules became too small to really function correctly, but screw you, you're getting a Wright design. The difference, though, is that he had a willing client in Price who only cared that he was getting a Wright building, and was willing to let Wright build whatever he wanted. That is how Wright preferred it.

Also, you have a lot more faith in OKC's evaluation of architecture. If Price Tower were here and unoccupied in the sixties or seventies, it very well might have met the wrecking ball.
...and "like" some more.

First national tower. Is a better compare to price. And you and I both know that is price tower was in OKC. It would have been renovated by now also.


Then why hasn't First National been renovated?

My two-and-a-half cents:

Yes, it'll be unfortunate to lose this unique building. That said, for the longest time, I was never told what made the building special, or that it was special at all. As a kid, which wasn't all that long ago, I'd see "Stage Center" and assume it was the city's second theater behind the Civic Center. I'd sometimes wonder why I rarely, if ever, heard about things being staged there. I never thought much of the concrete and painted boxes. No joy, no disgust, just "eh". It hardly even registered when I was right next to the building during the Arts Festival. And so it was on up to the present day. No real connection with the city was ever established for a variety of reasons, and that is why it's been so easy for it to be cut loose.

When the last of the concrete has been hauled away, it'll be funny not seeing that "whatever it is" sitting there anymore, but I likely won't lose any sleep over it. I probably won't think about it too much from that point on, either. Not because I'm a fan of its demolition, but because it hasn't been ingrained that it's worth mentioning. To me, Stage Center was neither Brutalist masterpiece nor hulking eyesore. It was just another building.

My two-and-a-half cents:

Yes, it'll be unfortunate to lose this unique building. That said, for the longest time, I was never told what made the building special, or that it was special at all. As a kid, which wasn't all that long ago, I'd see "Stage Center" and assume it was the city's second theater behind the Civic Center. I'd sometimes wonder why I rarely, if ever, heard about things being staged there. I never thought much of the concrete and painted boxes. No joy, no disgust, just "eh". It hardly even registered when I was right next to the building during the Arts Festival. And so it was on up to the present day. No real connection with the city was ever established for a variety of reasons, and that is why it's been so easy for it to be cut loose.

Yes. It did not fit in with the city's culture in both form or function. I think after 33 pages, it's been well established that OKC does not like unusual things. The irony is that our art community is probably stronger than it has been in a while and not just in terms of lyric and mainstream civic center type stuff. It'd probably be more used now than it was before it fell into disrepair and there was a time about 10-12 years ago that I found myself going quite a bit for locally produced plays, art shows, and performances.

There's something to be said for Stage Center because it made OKC a little more... unique. And that which is unique to a city is what gives a city character.

To a certain extent, yes. Ultimately, the people decide what gives the city character by accepting it as their own and running with it. For better or worse, the people decided that this building did not give the city character.

But I doubt it. There just aren't enough people in OKC who "get" the Stage Center.....yet. Or how cool it is to have something that unique in a city of this size. Just wait until its gone and there's a little office building with a giant parking garage, neither of any particular architectural interest, sitting on that lot. Meh.

Thank you, betts, for all you've done to save the Stage Center. Reading some of these posts makes me sad that the history of the building is not even known by some of the young people. If anyone that doesn't know cares enough to understand the building - here's a great video: it's in this post (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=Stage+Center+Tower&p=801414#post801414).

There just aren't enough people in OKC who "get" the Stage Center.....yet.

I'm one of the neanderthals that don't "get" SC. It sucks to be a philistine.:mad:

And yet whether or not you (or I) "get" a building is not the litmus test for whether it is worth keeping. Thankfully. You don't have to like French Impressionism for it to be important for OKC to get Impressionism exhibits. You don't have to like Hip Hop for it to be a good thing for the city when Jay-Z rolls through. You don't have to like the basketball or the NBA (some people actually hate it...imagine that) for it to be a good thing for the city that we got the Thunder.

If having a few people hate a particular style of building was enough to justify demolition, the suburbs would be torn down if only to satisfy JTF. This whole notion that EVERYONE must be in love with a building for it to be OK to exist is pretty peculiar. And the notion that one should be demolished simply because YOU don't "get" it is incredibly arrogant. It is perfectly OK - even desirable - for cities to have an architectural variety, and even for them to have provocative architecture that some people don't especially care for.

And yet whether or not you (or I) "get" a building is not the litmus test for whether it is worth keeping. Thankfully. You don't have to like French Impressionism for it to be important for OKC to get Impressionism exhibits. You don't have to like Hip Hop for it to be a good thing for the city when Jay-Z rolls through. You don't have to like the basketball or the NBA (some people actually hate it...imagine that) for it to be a good thing for the city that we got the Thunder.

If having a few people hate a particular style of building was enough to justify demolition, the suburbs would be torn down if only to satisfy JTF. This whole notion that EVERYONE must be in love with a building for it to be OK to exist is pretty peculiar. And the notion that one should be demolished simply because YOU don't "get" it is incredibly arrogant. It is perfectly OK - even desirable - for cities to have an architectural variety, and even for them to have provocative architecture that some people don't especially care for.

Really, you just described a city! It's the differences, and the acceptance of those differences, that make a quilted city of many - a city! Well said.

Oh, and put me down as one of those who agree 100% with what you said a few days ago doomed the Stage Center when the money people set their sites on that building: location, location, location.

And yet whether or not you (or I) "get" a building is not the litmus test for whether it is worth keeping. Thankfully. You don't have to like French Impressionism for it to be important for OKC to get Impressionism exhibits. You don't have to like Hip Hop for it to be a good thing for the city when Jay-Z rolls through. You don't have to like the basketball or the NBA (some people actually hate it...imagine that) for it to be a good thing for the city that we got the Thunder.

If having a few people hate a particular style of building was enough to justify demolition, the suburbs would be torn down if only to satisfy JTF. This whole notion that EVERYONE must be in love with a building for it to be OK to exist is pretty peculiar. And the notion that one should be demolished simply because YOU don't "get" it is incredibly arrogant. It is perfectly OK - even desirable - for cities to have an architectural variety, and even for them to have provocative architecture that some people don't especially care for.

If enough people liked it, that would have been enough to overcome the true litmus test: Financials. Basketball makes money, hip hop makes, Jay-Z makes money. Unfortunately, preservationist failed to make the argument that keeping a monument or sculpture that takes up a few acres was good for the city. Not that useful as an actual building.

If enough people liked it, that would have been enough to overcome the true litmus test: Financials. Basketball makes money, hip hop makes, Jay-Z makes money. Unfortunately, preservationist failed to make the argument that keeping a monument or sculpture that takes up a few acres was good for the city. Not that useful as an actual building.

Which brings us around to a bottom line (outside of monetary value) that the building is - in and of itself - as perfect an example of public art anywhere in this city, and maybe the country. That it's being demolished is a travesty of corporate interests over, well, anything.

And the notion that one should be demolished simply because YOU don't "get" it is incredibly arrogant.

It's ironic that you should use the word arrogant. I wasn't calling for SC to be torn down because "I don't get it", I was poking fun at the arrogance of those that do "get it" and feel that those who don't aren't sophisticated, intelligent or whatever enough to appreciate it.

It's ironic that you should use the word arrogant. I wasn't calling for SC to be torn down because "I don't get it", I was poking fun at the arrogance of those that do "get it" and feel that those who don't aren't sophisticated, intelligent or whatever enough to appreciate it.

It's actually not arrogance to state that a huge number of people are not educated or sophisticated enough to understand a lot of things. Are you suggesting that people who understand a subject are on an equal knowledge field as those who have no education, couldn't tell a building from a hut, and don't have the intellectual heft to not understand - many things? (Not just the Stage Center.) There's nothing arrogant, or new, about recognizing intellectual differences.

There are many things I don't understand. Music, art, food that I don't like. Yet I understand that they have their place in a city and I'm good with them being here.

If enough people liked it, that would have been enough to overcome the true litmus test: Financials. Basketball makes money, hip hop makes, Jay-Z makes money. Unfortunately, preservationist failed to make the argument that keeping a monument or sculpture that takes up a few acres was good for the city. Not that useful as an actual building.

Interesting that you left out the art museum. I expect that a French Impressionism exhibit would make lots. The museum itself would probably never come close to breaking even on daily receipts though. You also didn't address places I have previously mentioned such the Overholser Mansion or Robie House in Chicago. Fortunately for the art museum - and for us - there are benefactors who feel like OKC should have a quality museum of art. Fortunately for the Overholser Mansion there are donors who believe it is an important enough structure to retain and to spend millions of dollars to renovate. Fortunately for Chicago and for architecture lovers, Robie house has the same. SC was one major benefactor away from being viable as an architectural attraction. It's only too bad that we didn't recognize it as a community a generation ago.

If enough people liked it, that would have been enough to overcome the true litmus test: Financials. Basketball makes money, hip hop makes, Jay-Z makes money. Unfortunately, preservationist failed to make the argument that keeping a monument or sculpture that takes up a few acres was good for the city. Not that useful as an actual building.

The problem is, the people with the kind of money it takes to preserve something using private money either don't like it or don't care. If I were a multimillionaire, the Stage Center would now be a Children's Museum, with an amazing location between the Myriad Gardens and the elementary school. The people who work for the city or who are in political positions with enough power to do anything don't care either. I don't think it's arrogance to say they "don't get it". Art is always in the eye of the beholder and I understand that not everyone finds it attractive. Clearly I think it's amazing, but that's me. But what I don't understand is that people don't see that we're a city that actually has an architecturally significant building right in the middle of downtown, something no other city has, something that has a "wow" factor (or at least that's the first word out of every visitor's mouth I've taken past it. "Wow, what's that? That's cool!"). It's a building that could become something other than a theatre and that we all know could be saved. We're desperately searching for ways to make Oklahoma City interesting and unique and we're ignoring the one thing we've had since before downtown was even worth visiting. But, it's going to be torn down to build a building that I doubt will have anyone saying "wow" and that you could likely see in any city the size of Wichita on up. It reminds me of people who think that any new house, no matter how routine and predictable, is better than an old house with character. The old house might have some warts and require a bit of TLC, but when you're finished, it's something to be proud of, something with a lot of character. As has been mentioned here before, you could use the same arguments that have been used for the Stage Center for tearing down the Hotel Marion, and it's not even architecturally significant.

It's ironic that you should use the word arrogant. I wasn't calling for SC to be torn down because "I don't get it", I was poking fun at the arrogance of those that do "get it" and feel that those who don't aren't sophisticated, intelligent or whatever enough to appreciate it.

Funny, I don't really feel that way. Different strokes for different folks. Architecture is important to some people, unimportant to others. That's fine, but still doesn't make it unimportant overall.

Are you suggesting that people who understand a subject are on an equal knowledge field as those who have no education, couldn't tell a building from a hut, and don't have the intellectual heft to not understand - many things? (Not just the Stage Center.)

No, I am suggesting that over the 1600+ posts on this thread that the one thing both sides agree on is that how one feels about SC is a matter of taste. The difference between the two sides is that at least some of the preservationists see themselves as enlightened and superior to the unwashed masses that don't "get it'. Qu'ils mangent du gateau, n'est-ce pas?

For example, when I was younger I thought I had great taste in music and anyone who liked anything I didn't had crappy taste. When I matured a little I realized that they just had "different" taste than me and that was alright. In the case of SC I think it should be OK to not like the building without being accused of not getting it. A chacun son gout.

(Thought I'd throw in some French phrases to demonstrate my intellectual heft)

No, I am suggesting that over the 1600+ posts on this thread that the one thing both sides agree on is that how one feels about SC is a matter of taste. The difference between the two sides is that at least some of the preservationists see themselves as enlightened and superior to the unwashed masses that don't "get it'. Qu'ils mangent du gateau, n'est-ce pas?

For example, when I was younger I thought I had great taste in music and anyone who liked anything I didn't had crappy taste. When I matured a little I realized that they just had "different" taste than me and that was alright. In the case of SC I think it should be OK to not like the building without being accused of not getting it. A chacun son gout.

(Thought I'd throw in some French phrases to demonstrate my intellectual heft)

Okay, that was funny. Points given. I'm signing off to read some light schlock for the evening (Marcel Proust).

Proust sucks!



Just kidding.:p


In all seriousness, I can definitely say "I don't get Proust".:)

No, I am suggesting that over the 1600+ posts on this thread that the one thing both sides agree on is that how one feels about SC is a matter of taste. The difference between the two sides is that at least some of the preservationists see themselves as enlightened and superior to the unwashed masses that don't "get it'. Qu'ils mangent du gateau, n'est-ce pas?

For example, when I was younger I thought I had great taste in music and anyone who liked anything I didn't had crappy taste. When I matured a little I realized that they just had "different" taste than me and that was alright. In the case of SC I think it should be OK to not like the building without being accused of not getting it. A chacun son gout.

(Thought I'd throw in some French phrases to demonstrate my intellectual heft)

I don't understand your obsession with "intellect" and "enlightenment." I have seen very few remarks to that effect in this discussion. Frankly, the fact that you keep bringing it off comes off as insecurity. There is nothing wrong - NOTHING - with personally not liking that building.

You might be surprised to know it really isn't a building style that resonates that much with me personally, though I have gained appreciation for it. It's nowhere close to my favorite building in this town. I for one recognize that MY OWN PERSONAL TASTE, overall, lacks any relevance WHATSOEVER to whether or not a building is important.

One last thought before I give this thread a rest (I honestly have other stuff to do): though obviously more loved than Stage Center, plenty of people never especially liked the book Tom Sawyer. Many of them hated reading it when forced to in school. Maybe it was the writing style. The crude language and frank depictions of racism and slavery. Tough read at times. Intentionally provocative and off-putting. By the way, the same could be said for many books; I just used Tom Sawyer because it is well-known and easily makes a point. Just because someone didn't enjoy reading Tom Sawyer doesn't make them an idiot or a Philistine. Lots of people know that the book has at times been censored, shunned, banned, burned. Some people are outraged by this. Some just shrug their shoulders. Book lovers of course wish everyone was outraged by the bannings and burnings, but apathy isn't a crime and just because someone doesn't really care one way or another doesn't make them a terrible person either. The only real jerks are the people who danced around the fire at the book burning.

I don't understand your obsession with "intellect" and "enlightenment." I have seen very few remarks to that effect in this discussion. Frankly, the fact that you keep bringing it off comes off as insecurity.


Insecurity? You must not have seen me demonstrate my intellectual heft earlier.:beaten_fi

There's nothing arrogant, or new, about recognizing intellectual differences.Quite true, but it is more than slightly arrogant to call attention to them when one believes one's self to be on the "superior" end of the scale.

BT, DT... Still do pretty often, but at least I'm aware of it now...

Insecurity? You must not have seen me demonstrate my intellectual heft earlier.:beaten_fi

The fact that you felt compelled to only underscores my point. I don't doubt your intellect and haven't really seen anyone else here doing that.

Not that you would, but you don't have to apologize for not liking the building.

Quite true, but it is more than slightly arrogant to call attention to them when one believes one's self to be on the "superior" end of the scale.

BT, DT... Still do pretty often, but at least I'm aware of it now...

I would agree with that, Jim.