This April 2011 KFOR article says the new Stage Center study should be completed within five months.http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-stage-center-study-building-story,0,319058.story

I was told by someone who worked on the feasibility plan that it would take $26 million to get Stage Center up to date. He also said his group who will be partnering with a group out of Atlanta were trying to get the listing and that if they received the listing they would aim at bull dozing the place and building again. My friend is a strict preservationist but he said this is a case of where its just way too much money to try and preserve the building and the best thing to do is just bull doze it and start over. Will see what happens but it sounds like there is a real interest in making this lot something grand.

If it does get scraped, it might make sense to relocate the theater center and find the highest and best use for that land.

It would be a fantastic site for high-rise condos.

While I think high-rise condos would be GREAT there, it would be nice if the future developer were sensitive to that locations integration into the arts festival and included a space in the site plan that could be utilized by the festival when it comes around.

I mean, referencing your picture from the myriad thread, which clearly shows the arts festival booths being setup...
http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/myriadgardens3.jpg

Can you imagine if the whole block that Stage Center sits on became unavailable to the festival? Would really mess up the "floor plan"... although, perhaps in a few years the festival is moved closer to central park and it doesn't matter? Just thinking out loud about this...

I was told by someone who worked on the feasibility plan that it would take $26 million to get Stage Center up to date. He also said his group who will be partnering with a group out of Atlanta were trying to get the listing and that if they received the listing they would aim at bull dozing the place and building again. My friend is a strict preservationist but he said this is a case of where its just way too much money to try and preserve the building and the best thing to do is just bull doze it and start over. Will see what happens but it sounds like there is a real interest in making this lot something grand.

The problem is that it is already something grand. And unique. It is totally insane that this is even happening.

The reason it is likely to be razed is that there isn't anyone with money and influence to take up it's cause.

I don't even sense the same type of grass roots concern that surrounded the SandRidge demolitions.

Seems some are passionate about the place but most are indifferent at best.

While I think high-rise condos would be GREAT there, it would be nice if the future developer were sensitive to that locations integration into the arts festival and included a space in the site plan that could be utilized by the festival when it comes around.

I mean, referencing your picture from the myriad thread, which clearly shows the arts festival booths being setup...
http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/myriadgardens3.jpg

Can you imagine if the whole block that Stage Center sits on became unavailable to the festival? Would really mess up the "floor plan"... although, perhaps in a few years the festival is moved closer to central park and it doesn't matter? Just thinking out loud about this...

I wouldn't be surprised if Preftakes or Devon buys this land when the city approves for the Stage Center to be demolished, and it would be a great location for mixed-use development.

If the Ford site group was serious about doing a development on their property (soon to be commandeered for the convention center) this site would be a good substitute.

The reason it is likely to be razed is that there isn't anyone with money and influence to take up it's cause.

Which is good news because people with money and influence will probably use that site to actualy make money and turn it into something desirable.

If the Ford site group was serious about doing a development on their property (soon to be commandeered for the convention center) this site would be a good substitute.

Except it is about 1/6 the size of the Ford site.

It's still over 3 acres and plenty big enough for a substantial development of any type.

Except it is about 1/6 the size of the Ford site.

Good. That way they must go UP, not OUT.

But, I don't think the Ford Site group was serious as they had no real plans, just thoughts about what MIGHT go there. If they would have actually had plans, I doubt the CC would be going there.

I can't believe this conversation is seriously taking place.

Good. That way they must go UP, not OUT.

But, I don't think the Ford Site group was serious as they had no real plans, just thoughts about what MIGHT go there. If they would have actually had plans, I doubt the CC would be going there.

I'm all for up, not out (or down) - but if given the choice between spending and risking millions, or doing nothing and collecting $50 million, I'll take the $50 million.

I can't believe this conversation is seriously taking place.

LOL - Do't tell me you are worried about shadows killing off the plant life the MBG.

LOL - Do't tell me you are worried about shadows killing off the plant life the MBG.

No, I can't believe we're talking about the destruction of this building with such a cavalier attitude.

I can't believe we're talking about the destruction of this building with such a cavalier attitude.

Agreed.

I was told by someone who worked on the feasibility plan that it would take $26 million to get Stage Center up to date. He also said his group who will be partnering with a group out of Atlanta were trying to get the listing and that if they received the listing they would aim at bull dozing the place and building again. My friend is a strict preservationist but he said this is a case of where its just way too much money to try and preserve the building and the best thing to do is just bull doze it and start over. Will see what happens but it sounds like there is a real interest in making this lot something grand.

"I heard..." "I have a friend..." "I was told..." We hear all of that a lot on this forum and that's to be expected; however, I cannot accept that a "strict preservationist" (worth his salt) would claim what you wrote about this particular unique structure. We are talking $30,000,000 to move a power station - but can't match private dollars with a dollar to dollar matching program to reinvent this existing building? Or - anything?

On April 11th of this year you actually started a thread titled "Historical Buildings" and wrote the following:


I am a young guy that absolutely has no attachment to historical buildings downtown. The question I ask is why do people get so upset about historical buildings being torn down? You have blocks of old historical buildings that sit empty and when someone comes in and wants to tear it down and build something new everyone freaks out. What is the big deal?
http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=25427&p=420725#post420725

Honestly, someone who doesn't understand the significance of architecture in a historical context - especially in the fabric of the urban environment - loses all credibility on these matters. End of story. That's nothing personal, it's just based on your own posting admitting your lack of understanding.

Johansen's building is not going anywhere as long as some of us have a voice.

Arts Council and others who had a vested interest in the building more or less had their sights set on saving it, until the disastrous floods added another $9-$10 million to the project, and that is just to get the building up to code since the entire electrical system was shut.

Prior to the study I was hearing estimates of about $20-$25 million for a renovation. That is half the cost of the Civic Center overhaul, and for a building that has less than 10% of the seating capacity, and extremely limited event rental space. In other words, little to no means of making money.

As I have always heard, the purpose for that land is to help create an overall "arts" campus so cultural groups and the Gardens can have an interconnected space. The land as I know it is still owned by the Kirkpatrick family and/or Foundation. I am certain they will have a great opinion as to what finally happens to it, IF they choose to sell.

My understanding of the new theatre study was to see if a "new" theatre would be feasible. You can build something from scratch in the same space for less money that you can renovate Stage Center as is.

Like other architectural designs of the time, it is very much an example of "function follows form." An icon, for sure, but an operational nightmare from the bottom up.

We'll have to see how this plays out. If a high-rise ends up there, I'll be very, very surprised. (Just an opinion based on nothing more than a gut feeling. No inside knowledge in that - AT ALL).

No, I can't believe we're talking about the destruction of this building with such a cavalier attitude.

It might be an interesting complex to some people, but it is bad urban design no matter who you are. That is probably why there isn't much interest in saving it. It is out of place in a downtown environment.

In other words, little to no means of making money.

Well, if that's going to be the standard for whether we tear down our history - let the wrecking balls swing. I believe the premise of the statement is wrong as well as the understated message, whether true or not, that inability to "make money" should be our standard for making decisions about a building built by a world-renowned architect and recognized as a classic building representing cutting-edge architecture of the era. Did we learn nothing from the 60's and 70's when in our rush to "build great things" that we destroyed much of our history?

Well, if that's going to be the standard for whether we tear down our history - let the wrecking balls swing. I believe the premise of the statement is wrong as well as the understated message, whether true or not, that inability to "make money" should be our standard for making decisions about a building built by a world-renowned architect and recognized as a classic building representing cutting-edge architecture of the era. Did we learn nothing from the 60's and 70's in our rush to "build great things" that we destroyed much of our history?

Mike, this may be a good time for you and others who have a vested interest in keeping Stage Center to come up with a preservation plan and facilitate funding to save it. Form a fb group, make phone calls to the Chamber, City Council, Arts Council Board Members and others who need to hear from the preservationist side, and formulate a plan to HELP FUND IT. In the least, come up with a practical plan to help save it and present that to the folks who need to hear that message.

Fritter is right. Those of you who want to see Stage Center either need to gear up for a fight now, or simply sit at your keyboard, bemoan what's going on, and do nothing. It's your choice ... be sure others are moving forward with their own plans.

Fritter is right. Those of you who want to see Stage Center either need to gear up for a fight now, or simply sit at your keyboard, bemoan what's going on, and do nothing. It's your choice ... be sure others are moving forward with their own plans.

I'm sorry, I didn't know that you and Fritter knew what I do, or don't do, when I'm not typing at the keyboard. That's pretty unfair. We are also awaiting results from a study, remember? I don't need a condescending lecture on civic involvement. I'm a little surprised at that, Steve. I liked your last post - just over 24-hours ago much better: http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=26737&p=455087#post455087...especially this:
"OKC Talk serves as the ultimate counter-balance to any effort to squash public discussions, etc. And that contribution to the community is priceless."

Well, if that's going to be the standard for whether we tear down our history - let the wrecking balls swing. I believe the premise of the statement is wrong as well as the understated message, whether true or not, that inability to "make money" should be our standard for making decisions about a building built by a world-renowned architect and recognized as a classic building representing cutting-edge architecture of the era. Did we learn nothing from the 60's and 70's when in our rush to "build great things" that we destroyed much of our history?

When was it built? Late 60s? Early 70s?! It's not like it's ancient architecture. IMHO, the India Temple Building was a nicer building than Stage Center. Problem that people had back in the day is that they didn't build buildings to be preserved. Nor did they live long enough to take that task on. So as thousands of us have walked past these buildings or structures never once paying a lick of attention to them until they're brought up to our attention because they're going to be demolished does our varying generations only finally care about them.

So the problem is what two of you think versus the rest of the population of OKC that doesn't think about the Stage Center. They'll tear it down and regular people that go down there will see an empty lot and be like, "hey, didn't something used to be here? oh yeah, that's right, that weird looking structure that I honestly can't even make out in my mind, cause I never paid it that".

This lot is primo for that highrise hotel/condo living. You know the saying, "If you build it, they will come". That renowned architect might of been thinking the same thing when he built Stage Center but he couldn't account for the dilapidation that would come to it over time.

The study was commissioned in April and was estimated to take five months, so we should be hearing the results soon.

Personally, I've already resigned myself to the fact no one is going to come up with tens of millions just to try and piece this place back together.

I would hate to see it go, but if it was going to be saved that process should have started years ago, because the place has been rotting for at least 20 years.

How can ANYONE resign themselves to accepting the senseless demolition of the Stage Center? This is the 1960s all over again. We are once again tearing down the Criterion, and nobody seems to care. That is what's amazing.

How can ANYONE resign themselves to accepting the senseless demolition of the Stage Center? This is the 1960s all over again. We are once again tearing down the Criterion, and nobody seems to care. That is what's amazing.

That's because everyone cares about forward progress. You would be giddy if there was a new highrise built there or even on the Preftakes block. But the only way those are going to be built is by tearing down something that already exists. There are not many empty fields in downtown.

But the only way those are going to be built is by tearing down something that already exists. There are not many empty fields in downtown.

Huh?!? What downtown are you talking about??

I don't mean to sound incredulous, but I guess I am at seeing this written, even on an Internet forum of people who allegedly are knowledgeable about downtown. But you're the guy who referred to the Marriott Gardens the other day. Have you been downtown like ever? Never noticed all of the empty fields everywhere you look?

The Stage Center is an iconic piece of architecture. Totally surrounded by vacant lots to the west and south. In the 60s they thought that the Criterion wasn't unique or iconic as well, so they accepted its demolition. 40 years from now we will really lament tearing down the Stage Center. And people who refer to the Marriott Gardens shouldn't have a say in anything either, especially when their opinion is so misinformed and uneducated that it's laughable.

I'm a nice guy and I don't mean to criticize, but that is insane to say. Just absolutely insane. There is a 3-4 block area that has run out of space, AND EVEN WITHIN THAT 3-4 BLOCK CORE THERE ARE STILL PARKING GARAGES AND ACTUALLY HIDEOUS STRUCTURES THAT COULD BE TORN DOWN INSTEAD. Sheesh. There is a grain silo across from Bricktown still, for crying out loud. The idea that nothing will be built until something is torn down...I'm having a stroke here I think.

And forward progress my arse. That is the most laughable expression ever. It's a misnomer and an idiom for idiots. Actually, what that is constitutes backward progress. They seem similar but there is in fact a difference for those whose head's not reamed so far up their arse they can't tell a difference. I get the impression that the knowledge level of some people making decisions right now is so abysmal that they can't even differentiate their own f%$#ing colon from the Colcord.

/end hostile rant

Well, this is okctalk, lol

How can ANYONE resign themselves to accepting the senseless demolition of the Stage Center? This is the 1960s all over again. We are once again tearing down the Criterion, and nobody seems to care. That is what's amazing.

I don't think it seems to be a case of people not caring. Are people resigning themselves? Yes. But not because they don't have passion for the building. Most do. The problem comes with the REALITYof having to renovate and continually maintain a building that was so poorly built it has created nothing but maintenance problems for over 30 years.

Again, I ask you and Mike and others who have a passion for this to please put your minds together and work positively on a task force to help save it, if that is your desire. Don't point fingers at others for not submitting to your will when they are the ones who are looking at the numbers to see what is realistically possible, both in terms of construction and potential use, but also in terms of raising private dollars for the venture.

Please DO SOMETHING and work towards a positive outcome - and not in the negative, lambasting way that the Sandridge opposition did. They got more negative press than positive.

Create a fan page on fb. Extol the historic importance of this building, build a base of supporters via social media and other means, and present leaders with a SOLUTION for funding.

FTR, I just did a quick facebook search of both "Stage Center" and "Save Stage Center." Neither exists.

It's really that simple.

If The Stage Center is eventually dozed and replaced with some cookie cutter type development that we here in OKC are accustomed to seeing then I will be MAD!This truly unique building needs to be saved first and foremost but if another development is to be at the site,it needs to be iconic and not just some suburban looking stucco wrapped Legacy type junk!

Very well said, dmoor.


I don't think it seems to be a case of people not caring. Are people resigning themselves? Yes. But not because they don't have passion for the building. Most do. The problem comes with the REALITYof having to renovate and continually maintain a building that was so poorly built it has created nothing but maintenance problems for over 30 years.

Again, I ask you and Mike and others who have a passion for this to please put your minds together and work positively on a task force to help save it, if that is your desire. Don't point fingers at others for not submitting to your will when they are the ones who are looking at the numbers to see what is realistically possible, both in terms of construction and potential use, but also in terms of raising private dollars for the venture.

Please DO SOMETHING and work towards a positive outcome - and not in the negative, lambasting way that the Sandridge opposition did. They got more negative press than positive.

Create a fan page on fb. Extol the historic importance of this building, build a base of supporters via social media and other means, and present leaders with a SOLUTION for funding.

FTR, I just did a quick facebook search of both "Stage Center" and "Save Stage Center." Neither exists.

It's really that simple.



You are 100% right.

If you guys get a group organized, I will be happy to lend time and resources. I'd start it up, but I don't think a 24 year old student that does not live in OKC proper would be the best primary representative.

One reason I am not up in arms about this is because the place has been a disaster for almost from the beginning. It's not like it was thriving for decades... It's never really functioned well or been properly utilized.

This is why it's in the shape it's in. It's never made sense to throw money at it because you are still left with a poorly designed, hard to maintain facility.

The simple truth is that's it's been rotting away since almost the time it opened and nobody has even seemed to care or notice. That says a lot.

If The Stage Center is eventually dozed and replaced with some cookie cutter type development that we here in OKC are accustomed to seeing then I will be MAD!This truly unique building needs to be saved first and foremost but if another development is to be at the site,it needs to be iconic and not just some suburban looking stucco wrapped Legacy type junk!

Wholeheartedly agree. It can't be something like they put in Bricktown. It has to be something world class and if it can't be that, its beauty just needs to pierce the sky like the Devon Tower.

The problem with demolition is that it is in no way linked to future development. Completely separate processes.

Something is torn down but even if a developer swears they are going to replace it with something great (which they don't need to even address before getting a demolition permit) you can't force them to do it. Circumstances change, plans change and sometimes a developer just is being disingenuous.

Unfortunately, we have to look at these things separately and have no guarantee anything to our liking will take it's place.

Maybe it's just too damaged, but I still think it'd be perfect to convert Stage Center into a children's museum with the elementary school going in near by and with the gardens next door. Let's be honest, OKC is not going to support experimental theater to the extent necessary to maintain the building for that purpose. Re-purposing the building would be a win for everyone, in my opinion.

Here's an idea: (I can't take credit for it all by myself....it was a brainstormed solution from a couple of people who appreciate architecture.)
How about this....Devon and Mid-Continent team up for a solution: Move the theatre(s) to the big open lot along the Bricktown Canal, West of the baseball stadium. (I know it would be expensive but.....Most of the construction was done with simple industrial modules.) This would not only open up the space across from the Myriad Gardens, but would also provide a great venue for theatrical AND music performances, etc.....right in the middle of Bricktown! (They could call it the "Mid-Continent Mummers Theatre.) Discuss......

The problem with demolition is that it is in no way linked to future development. Completely separate processes.

Something is torn down but even if a developer swears they are going to replace it with something great (which they don't need to even address before getting a demolition permit) you can't force them to do it. Circumstances change, plans change and sometimes a developer just is being disingenuous.

Unfortunately, we have to look at these things separately and have no guarantee anything to our liking will take it's place.

Not to mention, even if it was an empty lot, they could still utilize the land a lot more than they do now, with regards to the Arts Festival, for placing even more pieces, just as they do now. Afterwards when the lot where Devon construction employees park now is being built into the elementary school, they can use this lot for that lots construction employees. It will have its uses but, yes, it is being under used right now.

I'm sorry, I didn't know that you and Fritter knew what I do, or don't do, when I'm not typing at the keyboard. That's pretty unfair. We are also awaiting results from a study, remember? I don't need a condescending lecture on civic involvement. I'm a little surprised at that, Steve. I liked your last post - just over 24-hours ago much better: http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.php?t=26737&p=455087#post455087...especially this:
"OKC Talk serves as the ultimate counter-balance to any effort to squash public discussions, etc. And that contribution to the community is priceless."
Mike, you're taking my comment too personally and interpreting it too severely. It wasn't aimed at you or anyone else specifically. But in this case, simply commenting on OKC Talk won't make a difference. Saving this structure will require much more than that.

Why could it not sustain itself like the Bruce Goff designed Spotlight Theater on Riverside Dr in Tulsa. They have kept it going for nearly 60 years playing The Drunkard, a mediocre mellowdrama. Will someone who knows tell us it's secret and do you think it could work for Stage Center.

For all that land, funky tubes and concrete, this is all there is to the place: a 580 seat theater, a 210 seat theater and a third structure for offices and rehearsal space.

There are better performance facilities at most high schools.

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/okla/oklacity/johansen/plan.jpg

I still think the City gets it's hands on this property and it is used for a convention center hotel highrise,or a mixed use tower with apartments/condos,hotel and retail.I think Devon and the city are looking at this site and wiping drool from their mouths.Thoughts?

So excited this terrible place is probably going to get bulldozed. Should have happened years ago.

Its not iconic either. Just because it is different and odd looking doesn't make it amazing. Its not a 100+ year old masterpiece. Even if it stays, it will not be cool 100 years from now.

It is an ugly eyesore that needs to be replaced with something new, functional, and appealing to the eye. Downtown needs to continue its facelift to bring it up to the times.
Theres way too many terrible buildings in the town from the 60's and 70's era. Getting rid of the stage center will be a fabulous start.

Well, Benman, do you mind telling us your favorite iconic buildings in the city.

BTW, I really do hope they can save Stage Center but if they do, I also hope they do things right.

The place has looked terrible for at least 25 years.

So excited this terrible place is probably going to get bulldozed. Should have happened years ago.

Its not iconic either. Just because it is different and odd looking doesn't make it amazing. Its not a 100+ year old masterpiece. Even if it stays, it will not be cool 100 years from now.

It is an ugly eyesore that needs to be replaced with something new, functional, and appealing to the eye. Downtown needs to continue its facelift to bring it up to the times.
Theres way too many terrible buildings in the town from the 60's and 70's era. Getting rid of the stage center will be a fabulous start. I have to agree with you. There is nothing iconic about Stage Center. It is ugly and needs to be either bulldozed or redeveloped into something that is visually stunning and modern! Now, if an developer with deep pockets rebuilt Stage Center then that would be a good readaptable use for that land!

So excited this terrible place is probably going to get bulldozed. Should have happened years ago.

Its not iconic either. Just because it is different and odd looking doesn't make it amazing. Its not a 100+ year old masterpiece. Even if it stays, it will not be cool 100 years from now.

It is an ugly eyesore that needs to be replaced with something new, functional, and appealing to the eye. Downtown needs to continue its facelift to bring it up to the times.
Theres way too many terrible buildings in the town from the 60's and 70's era. Getting rid of the stage center will be a fabulous start.

Obviously you have your opinion and obviously many people completely disagree with you. I have always considered it to be one of the most interesting and intriguing pieces of architecture in OKC since the day it was completed. I remember a time in the 60's and 70's when the attitude was to get rid of all of the terrible buildings from the 20's through 50's and you see what that idea caused.

The simple truth is that's it's been rotting away since almost the time it opened and nobody has even seemed to care or notice. That says a lot.

This is painfully true, I admit. OKC has never embraced the only building of this potential architectural caliber that this state has ever had. It embraced the Price Tower and the Gold Dome, but the Stage Center crossed a line of daring that cost its support from such a plain city.

I have to agree with the nay sayers. The building has always looked to me like something I might have built from Tinkertoys when I was 5. Personal opinion but the thing is ugly. The building has it's supporters but apparently none with enough money to revive the building. There were never enough supporters to even keep it open full time over the years.

Arts Council and others who had a vested interest in the building more or less had their sights set on saving it, until the disastrous floods added another $9-$10 million to the project, and that is just to get the building up to code since the entire electrical system was shut.

Prior to the study I was hearing estimates of about $20-$25 million for a renovation. That is half the cost of the Civic Center overhaul, and for a building that has less than 10% of the seating capacity, and extremely limited event rental space. In other words, little to no means of making money.

As I have always heard, the purpose for that land is to help create an overall "arts" campus so cultural groups and the Gardens can have an interconnected space. The land as I know it is still owned by the Kirkpatrick family and/or Foundation. I am certain they will have a great opinion as to what finally happens to it, IF they choose to sell.

My understanding of the new theatre study was to see if a "new" theatre would be feasible. You can build something from scratch in the same space for less money that you can renovate Stage Center as is.

Like other architectural designs of the time, it is very much an example of "function follows form." An icon, for sure, but an operational nightmare from the bottom up.

We'll have to see how this plays out. If a high-rise ends up there, I'll be very, very surprised. (Just an opinion based on nothing more than a gut feeling. No inside knowledge in that - AT ALL).

If it goes to the wrecking ball, I would hope it gets replaced with a design equally or more important, provocative and functional in our city in a way Stage Center was not.

If it goes to the wrecking ball, I would hope it gets replaced with a design equally or more important, provocative and functional in our city in a way Stage Center was not.

That isn't going to happen because that is the problem itself. The Stage Center is actually a pretty cool design for theater, and its much more functional than people on here are giving it credit for. Having attended plays inside of it, there is a really cool vibe--every seat is a great seat. I've been to some other "starchitecture" theaters in Europe and Canada where every seat is a bad seat. The problem is that it was its bold design primarily that kept people from liking it, and nobody ever got used to it because they immediately shrouded it with scrubby trees that were specifically picked to grow fast and obstruct every intended vantage point of the building. It never even got a chance, so if it is limited, it would be nice if they would at least get rid of those awful trees obstructing its view so people could at least get the intended vibe for a few months before it is demolished.

OKC has never embraced the only building of this potential architectural caliber that this state has ever had

The reason for that is that it's never really worked well for it's intended purpose. It's changed ownership several times, had a few different theater companies and generally just sat there barely being used (or completely closed) for decades.


All of which begs the question: Even if we fix it, how is anything going to change? And even: Is there a really need in the community for this type of venue?

That isn't going to happen because that is the problem itself. The Stage Center is actually a pretty cool design for theater, and its much more functional than people on here are giving it credit for. Having attended plays inside of it, there is a really cool vibe--every seat is a great seat. I've been to some other "starchitecture" theaters in Europe and Canada where every seat is a bad seat. The problem is that it was its bold design primarily that kept people from liking it, and nobody ever got used to it because they immediately shrouded it with scrubby trees that were specifically picked to grow fast and obstruct every intended vantage point of the building. It never even got a chance, so if it is limited, it would be nice if they would at least get rid of those awful trees obstructing its view so people could at least get the intended vibe for a few months before it is demolished.

Yes, I know, I've been a fan since it was built, have attended many events there, including theater, storytelling, music, art and conference. I also take every visitor who I show our city to by the center.

My comment was that if it were to be replaced with something that still was a cultural center mentioned, with whatever kind of programmed space is determined to suit our needs, one that might include theater, staff offices, classrooms, meeting rooms, gallery or whatever, that the design be something great. That was a positive wish on my part in the face of what is a failure, the failure of the building working in our community viably and the failure to save it, which seems to be apparent.

I've not attended much theater at other venues other than the Civic Center, The Ford Center and OCU, but most if not all I know of, never received sufficient support to make for long term survival. We apparently are not the kind of city that has the support base to use a theater only venue such as Stage Center well.

That does not mean I want to lose the building. I would rather save it and find a way to make it viable.

If you think about it, Devon may have been better off putting money into Stage Center and using the main theater for their auditorium when needed.

Devon's facility will only be 300 seats, and now it will be yet another performance venue. SandRidge is building a big one too (500 seats), lest we forget.

Plus, we already have performance sites at Kerr Park, the Myriad Gardens and soon to be grandstand / stage on the OK River. This is in addition to Lyric Theater, the Civic Center (the main hall plus two smaller theaters and rehearsal space), OCU (3 theaters), UCO, OU, high schools... Have you seen the fantastic auditoriums at the three Putnam City high schools (PC's is shown below)? Each one is nicer than a lot of city's civic centers. Heck, Northwest Classen has a great facility as do almost all the suburban high schools.

Before we plow tens of millions into this place, how about we stop and think about if it's really needed? And if it's not needed as a theater (as the past has seemed to demonstrate) then is there a better, more viable use worth the investment?

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

The question with this building always has been, and is now.... Is it a building which must serve a purpose, or is it a work of art? As a building it has failed. As a piece of art it has substantial merit.

The question with this building always has been, and is now.... Is it a building which must serve a purpose, or is it a work of art? As a building it has failed. As a piece of art it has substantial merit.

Hammer? Meet head of nail. THIS is the conundrum.

Now imagine being a civic leader responsible for raising funds for a renovation you KNOW will continue to have problems because the original architecture did not allow for practical operations of space.

I'm not saying that as a casual observer, but as someone who works with people daily who used to be in charge of maintaining it. Every week, there were new (and expensive) problems, and every time something would be "fixed," another issue would arise. It is house of rotting cards.

If you think about it, Devon may have been better off putting money into Stage Center and using the main theater for their auditorium when needed.


I had considered that as a possibility and hope they have too. Assumed they would if they are participating in the study.

Okay, I took a little time to try and inventory all the performance spaces in central OKC. You'll see from the following list, there are a ton with more to come. The number in parenthesis represents capacity.

Stage Center: Noble (580)
Stage Center: East (210)

Civic Center: Main (2,477)
Civic Center: Little (286)
Civic Center: CitySpace (100)
Plaza Theater: Lyric (279)
Jewel Box Theater (185)
OKC Museum of Art: Noble (250)
Downtown Library: 46th Star (140)
OCU: Kirkpatrick (1,000)
OCU: Petree (500)
OCU: Burg (250)
Devon (300)
SandRidge (500)

Kerr Park
Myriad Gardens: Water Stage
Myriad Gardens: Band Shell
OK River: Water Stage & Grandstand

We also have Will Rogers Theater and Tower Theater that could/should be used as performance venues. And of course, I'm not counting the CHK Arena, Cox Center, Coca-Cola Center, etc.


Further afield you have Rose State (a new, beautiful 1,400 seat facility), OCC (Judd Theater), UCO, OU, Southern Nazarene and probably tons more I'm overlooking.