Glad I don't know the difference between good and bad performance centers. Every time my wife and I have gone to a show here, we have left with smiles on our faces. Is this more of a problem for those that are avid show goers or is there something in particular that I could/should be watching/listening for?

The Civic Center hosts everything from musicals to ballet, from orchestral performances to business programs. It must be large enough to house a number of people to make it cost effective to host the events on limited run basis without raising ticket prices beyond affordability. In other words, it must be VERY flexible and may not be specifically designed for technical excellence for EVERY event. Among others, I've been to La Scala....one of the world's most historically acclaimed opera venue. It would be very lacking for a number of other uses we expect at our Civic Center. NO venue will be perfect, but ours is pretty darn good. We got a lot for our money.

Most problems with the hall's acoustics have NOTHING to do with the hall itself and everything to do with the sound tech or engineer of the performing arts group who is presenting a show there.

This is so true. It's very hard to work with a bad room, but a good room alone does not mean that it will always sound good.

... We could have improved all seats by eliminating some size and seats. That would have been controversial also. So, we maximized the seating...
Reportedly that is exactly what they did, they reportedly eliminated seating and made the lower levels more "intimate". Maybe they added seating by going up. IIRC in the old, there was only the one balcony level and it so set fairly far back. I did check out the upper level seating and it did seem like you were looking directly down on the stage. But even from the back row, I could see where vertigo might be a problem for some (it was disconcerting for me and as far as I know, I don't have that affliction).

... improved the acoustics immeasurably, retained the historic shell of the building and the great Hall of Mirrors, and did it for a reasonable price.
As I said, the seats were in the same location and the acoustics were worse, not better. As Betts pointed out, our samplings are limited. I don't have the excess funds to keep changing seats and constantly upgrading to find a location that will be acceptable. It was more than acceptable the one time and completely unacceptable the next.

Guess it depends on your definition of reasonable. The Civic Center came in costing nearly double what voters were told:
Pre-vote = $27MM
Final cost = $53MM
Over = $26MM

So of course, some on here are totally disappointed because their $15 seat isn't as great as the $100 seat.
Where did I say that I expected a $100 seat for $15? I didn't, but I think it is entirely reasonable to expect the same viwwing/auditory experience from seats that were supposedly in the same row and within 5 seats (left to right) from before/after.

My experience has been that the acoustics have been fine, at least for symphony performances. I've never been to any plays in the new auditorium.

It is, by the way, smaller than the original.

Larry, you're not acknowledging what others have said about different shows using their default sound settings and not working with the building.

Unless you saw the exact same play produced by the same company with the same equipment before and after the remodel, I don't think you can make too harsh of a judgement.

If The city of OKC cannot fit the new Convention center hotel on the proposed site do you guys think the city will buy out the land or use eminent domain to use this property for the hotel?

I would prefer that to the alternative of the city demolishing it without a private developer committed to building anything.

I would prefer that to the alternative of the city demolishing it without a private developer committed to building anything.

^^Agreed,we have enough empty lots,and one more in a prime area without any concrete plans is just stupid imo!

Guess it depends on your definition of reasonable. The Civic Center came in costing nearly double what voters were told:
Pre-vote = $27MM
Final cost = $53MM
Over = $26MM



$53 million is a bargain for what we got. They basically demolished the entire interior of the performance hall, only leaving the shell, and rebuilt everything. That price isn't too bad for doing all of that. Actually, the only thing left untouched was Freede Theater.

$53 million is a bargain for what we got. They basically demolished the entire interior of the performance hall, only leaving the shell, and rebuilt everything. That price isn't too bad for doing all of that. Actually, the only thing left untouched was Freede Theater.



shhhh. Don't spread that. There are many on this board who still think we should get great stuff on the cheap. That is what is important...not value, just cheap.

My experience has been that the acoustics have been fine, at least for symphony performances. I've never been to any plays in the new auditorium.

It is, by the way, smaller than the original.

That's putting it mildly since the original Muncipal Auditorium could seat 6,400.

shhhh. Don't spread that. There are many on this board who still think we should get great stuff on the cheap. That is what is important...not value, just cheap.

Agreed. And that's exactly the attitude that drives me nuts.

Some people on this board want OKC to have the best of everything. When the Civic Center isn't the Sydney Opera House, they get pissed. When the new convention center doesn't compare to sites in Vegas, they get pissed. There was even a guy (don't remember who) who started throwing a fit because Devon lopped off about 100' from their building to move all their IT stuff to another location. I remember him saying that he wished they wouldn't even build the tower now because it "wasn't what we were promised". These people act like spoiled children.

On the other side, we have those who complain the moment we go one penny over budget. They aren't necessarily looking for us to have innovative design or a great product, they just want cheap. Get whatever it is for as little money as possible, like there's some list they're going down putting check-marks beside. Arena, check. Convention center, check. New park, check.

At the end of the day, OKC isn't going to spend the money to get the best thing in the world. The Sydney Opera House cost over $100 million back in 1973! On the other hand, pinching pennies and getting something for the absolute least amount of money possible has NEVER been the goal of MAPS, nor should it be.

When the new convention center doesn't compare to sites in Vegas, they get pissed.

I think the problem arises when they promise a convention center that does compare to sites in Vegas at half the cost, but what we get is half the Vegas site at twice the cost. Mind you I am not one that gets hung up on cost over-runs and such because I have done enough remodeling to know better. I just think that is what the people who do have issues are expressing.

I think the problem arises when they promise a convention center that does compare to sites in Vegas at half the cost, but what we get is half the Vegas site at twice the cost. Mind you I am not one that gets hung up on cost over-runs and such because I have done enough remodeling to know better. I just think that is what the people who do have issues are expressing.

Again, your facts are wrong. No one here, in OKC Chambers or City Hall promised a CC that would rival sites in Vegas.

Again, your facts are wrong. No one here, in OKC Chambers or City Hall promised a CC that would rival sites in Vegas.

We already have a thread for the Convention Center - sorry to detract from this one.

The Sydney Opera House cost over $100 million back in 1973!
It also came in at more than double the original budget.

So as not to further contribute to the derailing of the thread, I have responded by PM to Frittergirl, Rover, mcca7596 & Patrick

I've always loved Stage Center and hope a viable option for keeping it around can be found, private, public or whatever.

There's definitely a love-hate relationship with this place.

Next stage

While Stage Center's future remains cloudy, it's hardly the first obstacle in the iconic building's history.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-12378-next-stage.html

There's definitely a love-hate relationship with this place.

If those who love it will really get behind and support it (read $$$$$), then there will be no problem. If they expect support from the general public, it will be very hard. I personally like the place and hope it makes it but I haven't decided how hard I would be willing to fight. I bet I am not alone in that quandary.

According to the Gazette article, Johanson said that the flooding problems could be fixed by a simple sump pump and that most materials were bought at a farm store, so why is it going to be so expensive to rehab and continue using it. I still suspect that our collective legs are being pulled to some extent. Granted I feel some solice knowing that Tolbert is a major supporter, but with this info from Johanson, I just have to wonder.....

If the building was flooded then there is the real possibility of black mold infestation which would be very costly to remediate. Plus, if water damage harmed mechanical systems, flooring, walls, etc. then the costs go way up. Don't know, but some of the problems could be very expensive. Has any qualified contractor actually inspected and estimated?

On another thread there is some mention of the dangers of asbestos and Mercury and some questions regarding the veracity of those claims of danger. I must say I have my doubts about the dangers of black mold. Is there a good link to a good discussion of such dangers? If it IS very dangerous can it not be "encased" against the surface with some special coating, if not simple polyurithane?

We've probably had black mold with us for eons. I'm not too worried about it. I don't think there's a lot of hard data about the risks of it, and I'm sure in wetter climates it's in virtually every home. There are probably some people more sensitive to it than others, but I suspect its effects are vastly overblown. It's made home inspectors and repairers a lot of money, however. Perhaps it's better for the economy than it is bad for us.

We've probably had black mold with us for eons. I'm not too worried about it. I don't think there's a lot of hard data about the risks of it, and I'm sure in wetter climates it's in virtually every home. There are probably some people more sensitive to it than others, but I suspect its effects are vastly overblown. It's made home inspectors and repairers a lot of money, however. Perhaps it's better for the economy than it is bad for us.

Tell me you are kidding. Black mold can be extremely serious...that is why it is called "toxic" mold. It can cause serious respiratory problems when it enters the lungs, and can even cause cancer. It is not to be trifled with. In asthmatics and children it can cause bleeding lungs, among other things. To knowingly allow it in any building, especially a public building, is asking for serious problems and lawsuits. To imply it is a scam and it is okay to allow it to exist and reopen the building is beyond irresponsible.

The mold in question is Stachybotrys chartarum. While there are studies in infant mice and goats demonstrating some potential pathology, its relationship to disease in humans is not well demonstrated. At the most, only about a third of it's spores are even small enough to be an inhalational risk. From the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: "The exact mechanism of S. chartarum pathogenesis has not yet been defined. Moreover, a causality-effect relation (to respiratory disease in humans) is not yet established."

I'm a pediatrician and I've been at a referral center for 20 years. I have yet to see a single case of bleeding lungs in infants. What I have seen is a lot of cigarette-induced lung disease. The pathophysiology of asthma is very complex, and in fact I do not believe it is a single disease. Like cystic fibrosis, I believe it is probably 100 different diseases that have a single common endpoint. Genetic and environmental factors play a part and it is difficult to separate out the two. To attribute disease solely to a single fungal agent that is almost never grown in lung tissue of healthy children and/or adults is too simplistic an explanation, especially when those children are exposed to cigarette smoke, smog, dust mites, animal dander, cockroach debris, other fungi and pollens.

I don't think anyone should knowingly allow it to be present in buildings. However, I think there's been hysteria way out of proportion to the public health risk and a lot of money spent on abatement that perhaps would better be spent on control of car emissions, manufacturing emissions, smoking cessation, asthma education, etc.

the doc's stock ... up ten points, at least in my opinion.

The mold in question is Stachybotrys chartarum. While there are studies in infant mice and goats demonstrating some potential pathology, its relationship to disease in humans is not well demonstrated. At the most, only about a third of it's spores are even small enough to be an inhalational risk. From the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: "The exact mechanism of S. chartarum pathogenesis has not yet been defined. Moreover, a causality-effect relation (to respiratory disease in humans) is not yet established."

I'm a pediatrician and I've been at a referral center for 20 years. I have yet to see a single case of bleeding lungs in infants. What I have seen is a lot of cigarette-induced lung disease. The pathophysiology of asthma is very complex, and in fact I do not believe it is a single disease. Like cystic fibrosis, I believe it is probably 100 different diseases that have a single common endpoint. Genetic and environmental factors play a part and it is difficult to separate out the two. To attribute disease solely to a single fungal agent that is almost never grown in lung tissue of healthy children and/or adults is too simplistic an explanation, especially when those children are exposed to cigarette smoke, smog, dust mites, animal dander, cockroach debris, other fungi and pollens.

I don't think anyone should knowingly allow it to be present in buildings. However, I think there's been hysteria way out of proportion to the public health risk and a lot of money spent on abatement that perhaps would better be spent on control of car emissions, manufacturing emissions, smoking cessation, asthma education, etc.

I certainly defer to your expertise as a Dr.. My perspective comes from researching for product development on UV light products for remediation of these types of things in buildings. I will only say I have seen quite a bit of qualified research that takes a more stern, or at least cautious view than you expressed. Organizations like the CDC have made pretty declarative statements in the past. My only point, and I hope I didn't do it as an attack, was that mold in a public building cannot be dismissed as harmless and that remediation could be expensive. For people to say that there is do problem with a simple paint job and re-opening the Stage Center, I think is naive. Do we have to nuclear destruct it....heavens no.

Thanks for weighing in with your credential.

Oh, and Bett's stock has always been up as far as I am concerned...always seems to have a sane, measured and educated thought on the subjects on this board. Don't know him/her personally, but do have respect for them.

Rover, I can't help but believe that the CDC and other gov't agencies have to "cry wolf" in order to stay in existence and maintain the jobs of those who work there. I truly believe that everything is overblown for that reason. Granted they do have a huge amount of power and can force things that some of us think is ridiculous, but I can't help but think there is some kind of work around for "encasing" (so to speak) the black mold that is not excessivly expensive. If nothing can be found to pull that off I would like to think that it is time for a law suit to mitigate their power and/or change the rules . This is just me being desparate. :-)

Agencies like CDC are in a no-win position. If they fail to correctly and adequately notify of dangers then the public will accuse them of being another do-nothing agency and be enraged they didn't foresee a problem. If they do make a warning then they get the accusations you just made. We all hate these kinds of organizations until we want them to protect us.

On this issue, CDC was not my definitive source of info. I did a lot of research over a period of about 2 years and there was a fair amount of corroborating clinical research and case study as to the dangers or potential dangers of black mold. Is it a bigger issue than terrorism...no. Is it something to be summarily dismissed..no to that, as well.

Eradicating black mold can be simple or hard depending on how deeply it has penetrated and where it is. If it is pervasive in drywall and wood studs, it may be necessary to tear out and replace. Ceiling tiles usually are scrapped if mold is found in them. However, sometimes just a good bath with Clorox does the trick. So, the remediation can be simple or extensive. I have no idea in the case of Stage Center. What I do suspect is that the city would err on the side of caution and that would be the position of any insuring agency as well.

I have been under the impression that most of the mold was on the concrete walls in the basement so if that is true I would imagine that it should be relatively easy to remove it or "fix" it in place. I'll keep on a hopin'.

I was there today and spoke to workers and they gave me the impression it was over.. No real confidence in saving this place. I hope it stays, but my gut and area sentiment is not good.

dead man walking...

Met with some architects last night. they're not happy

That's a shame. I've always loved that building. Frankly I think it's more important than the Gold Dome was.

It needs a large corporate sponsor otherwise it's probably a goner.

On the bright side, perhaps the best spot in town for high-rise residential or maybe even a hotel/condo combination tower.

I'm thinking the new convention center hotel will be built on this site!I'd rather see the Stage Center alive and well but it's not and I dont see any investors willing to dump money into it!

Say...could the Stage Center buildings themselves be RELOCATED? I mean, its design is somewhat modular...

That could be an incredible project for a school of architecture or the like...

That is true for most of it, but the main stage is actually a lot bigger than it looks on the outside. If this is lost, wow...

Welcome back Spartan.

Mostly concrete though? I mean, perhaps THAT is where you could get a corporate sponsor. I think you'd have a hard time getting a corporate sponsor to get involved in saving a building in the current location without Devon being directly involved. I don't know if Devon is for or against saving it, but it seems as if they would have already spoken up for doing so if they were. I mean, they're remaking that whole portion of downtown. So, if they aren't motivated, why would another corporation want to get in the middle of it? But, it wouldn't offend anyone if someone assisted in relocation. Heck, maybe even Devon would help pony up for that, if they had other plans for that site. Win for everyone. I don't think the location itself has anything to do with the significance of that particular building.

It will be a shame to lose this. Unfortunately, it has been on life support for a lllloooonnnngggg time with no white knight. We need to learn that the time to save what is precious is BEFORE the plug is being pulled. The "Save Stage Center" effort needed to start 10 yrs. ago. Now, it looks like it is too late. Updating things and putting them in good repair is much easier and cheaper if it is done regularly. If there are other buildings out there in this situation, we need to identify and do something about them NOW instead of crying when they are gone. It takes a long time to educate everyone on why something is culturally important and why it needs to be saved. When asking for help at the 11th hour, the answers are almost always no.

That said, are there any potential white knights out there for this project? Is anything being done at a grass roots level?

dead man walking...

Hate to hear you say this Steve. I think the building is a wonder. I had a friend from New York City visit back in the 80s. He said "you must be very proud to have such a building in your city." OKC received much publicity in architectural circles when the building opened. I'm sure architects will be absolutely dumb-founded if they hear we've let this splendid piece of brutalism architecture be demolished. This building is ten times more important to the architectural fabric of this city than the gold dome, and I "love" the gold dome!

Agree wholeheartedly.

Agreed. Total shame to let it go.

dead man walking...


Sadly, I feel even this might be overly optimistic.

It needs a large corporate sponsor otherwise it's probably a goner.

On the bright side, perhaps the best spot in town for high-rise residential or maybe even a hotel/condo combination tower.

I wouldn't mind replacing the children's building blocks and hampster tubes Stage Center with a hotel/conduminiums tower the likes of The Omni in Fort Worth. That would look good downtown and would compliment the area very well, not to mention, get rid of the bums--excuse me, urban campers. Sorry!

It needs a large corporate sponsor otherwise it's probably a goner.

On the bright side, perhaps the best spot in town for high-rise residential or maybe even a hotel/condo combination tower.

Devon is the only one that would fit that bill, and I just don't see them saving it.

Devon is the only one that would fit that bill, and I just don't see them saving it.

Devon isn't the only white knight in the kingdom, but sadly, if a shining knight were to step forward, that would have likely already occurred.

Devon isn't the only white knight in the kingdom, but sadly, if a shining knight were to step forward, that would have likely already occurred.

ohh there will be someone stepping forward to this property,just not to save the Stage Center sadly!I see a mixed use area or a convention hotel of or sadly even a parking garage!

Maybe someone could get in Sandridge's ear. I think they'd benefit from the PR, considering the India Temple debacle. Steve...?

Um yeah... you do know I'm really just a guy with a pen and a notepad, right?

Well, a guy with a pen and a notepad that a fair bit of people listen to. That was intended to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, anyway.

Don't worry, though, I have no illusions that this forum is much more than a collection of Virginia Woolf style stream of consciousness ramblings about our fair city.

If it is truly not looking very good for the Stage Center, that doesn't prevent any of you guys from having your say about it and taking the issue up. I have yet to see this issue taken up publicly, although I'm well aware that it has been analyzed at the higher echelons.

Did the study come back yet, or is it still being compiled?

think it is delayed but should be completed soon?

Dear Powerball Random Number Generator,

We could be heroes if your dials spin right.

Just Sayin',

Odd Theater Fan

If it is truly not looking very good for the Stage Center, that doesn't prevent any of you guys from having your say about it and taking the issue up. I have yet to see this issue taken up publicly, although I'm well aware that it has been analyzed at the higher echelons.

Did the study come back yet, or is it still being compiled?

Is there an analysis forthcoming? Cost of remediation, update, potential cash flow analysis, etc.? Any chance that would be made public?

Yes, the city commissioned it back when it was first damaged by the flood waters..I forget how many months ago. I was still in OKC.

Think the study was mentioned either in Steve's Oklahoman article or over in the Gazette, but I don't have the links to either.