With all this space it is too bad OKC doesn't have a robust live theater scene. I guess too many people prefer to see the junk Hollywood puts out.

With all this space it is too bad OKC doesn't have a robust live theater scene. I guess too many people prefer to see the junk Hollywood puts out.True. This is part of the issue. Over the years there have been numerous theater companies that have tried local live theater. Very few have had any success. Unfortunately this is another strike against Stage Center. As mentioned before the building has spent many of it's years with little use or no use at all. If no theatrical company can guarantee that they can make the venue work, why bother.

The Lyric, Jewel Box, OCU and Civic Center productions have been going strong for a long time.

But the Mummers / Stage Center companies have struggled throughout.

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.

I think one of the most under used, actually unused, outdoor concert venues is the amphitheater at Will Rogers Park.

But the Mummers / Stage Center companies have struggled throughout.Along with Carpenter Square, which was in the same area. Maybe, part of the equation?

I saw on Facebook that someone has created a Save Stage Center page...

Would've been cheaper just to demolish the Skirvin and rebuild.

^^^
must refrain....

Would've been cheaper just to demolish the Skirvin and rebuild.

No kidding. That's what needs to happen to the FNC, too.

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.

I just don't see how it has failed when nobody has ever given it an honest effort to begin with.

I just don't see how it has failed when nobody has ever given it an honest effort to begin with.

I agree completely. It now is just all about what the land underneath is worth and how Larry Nichols drools to get his hands on that land. Our city may be renamed Nichol's City after all is said and done. It's that "benevolent plutocracy."

Well, I'm not sure Nichols wants to OWN that land, but perhaps he wouldn't mind seeing something more..."appropriate"...across from his HQ? I actually have no idea how Nichols thinks when it comes to this stuff, and I wish I had that insight, actually.

With all this space it is too bad OKC doesn't have a robust live theater scene. I guess too many people prefer to see the junk Hollywood puts out.

There is more live theater in OKC than many people are aware of. I recently attended a great production of "Hair" at the Reduxion Theater on Broadway. They offer several productions each year. There is also the Ghostlight Theater on Walker in the Paseo District.

You rock for supporting those little guys that most haven't even heard of, ljbab.

You rock for supporting those little guys that most haven't even heard of, ljbab.

People who say that OKC doesn't have a live theater scene just aren't looking or they live in Jacksonville. It's not Broadway quality but it is fun and entertaining.

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.Were you aware that immediately after it first opened, folk were describing it as "TinkerToys for adults"?

And in response to an earlier message in the thread asking what Tulsa's secret was, I suspect it was the fact that they were playing "The Drunkard." In the days before they built what is now Stage Center, the Mummers financed their primary seasons by running a tent show in Will Rogers Park every summer, playing old-time mellerdrama such as "The Drunkard." Had they continued doing so, they just might have survived the "good fortune" of building the new facility... Those summer seasons were really fun, and even more fun backstage than out in the audience!

People who say that OKC doesn't have a live theater scene just aren't looking or they live in Jacksonville. It's not Broadway quality but it is fun and entertaining.

Or they're waiting for Grease Lightning at the Civic Center, and then complain to the Joke when the Lyric includes some adult jokes in the production. That said, I always try and catch something at the Lyric on the Plaza (did Pete forget that one?) but they're too infrequent there.

The Stage Center is our version of the Georges Pompidou Centre. Parisians absolutely despised it at first, but they never covered it up with ugly trees, then over time they grew to love it and today it is a Paris landmark. Same goes with the Louvre annex. I believe that if the Stage Center was cleaned up and the trees were removed, over time, it would get the same reception, AND perhaps even belong in the same category architecturally. It's that unique of a piece of architecture.

As for how to use it, come on. There are decent concerts that happen in a place called the Diamond Ballroom, in a shoddy over-sized trailer out on South Eastern (probably modeled after "the Weed" in Stillwater), and we can't figure out what kind of events to put in a really proper venue smack in downtown designed by John Johansen.

Kids in architectural theory classes review Johansen's work, I know this for a fact having been there myself. We're going to tear this down for something that will probably be designed by ADG. Give me a freaking break...

Were you aware that immediately after it first opened, folk were describing it as "TinkerToys for adults"?No, I don't remember that. I had to search to find the name of the toy the other day when I posted that.

I just don't see how it has failed when nobody has ever given it an honest effort to begin with.I would call any restaurant building, retail building, theater building or any other building that has changed hands umpteen times with no one being able to make a real go of it a failure. I would imagine that if Stage Center were just another square building with the same history of no one being able to keep it open everyone else would consider it a failure as a building also.

I just don't see how it has failed when nobody has ever given it an honest effort to begin with.

Don't know your age, but in the past it has been given many chances to be viable and nothing ever was. So, as a building it has failed. I understand that it has always been a maintenance nightmare and consistently had mechanical problems. The problem with architecture as art is that if that is all it is and function is ignored, then it is extremely costly. Unlike most other art forms, it is exposed to harsh environment and neglect is disastrous. With most art you buy it, preserve it and it appreciates. With art like this, you pay dearly for it, pay dearly to keep it, and finally pay dearly to resurrect it. Then you pay dearly to maintain it at that level, or start the cycle all over again. There is no way there is an economic scenario that works for that building, and preservation will be very, very expensive. I love the building, but this one is a tough cause to justify.

Don't know your age, but in the past it has been given many chances to be viable and nothing ever was. So, as a building it has failed.

Define a chance to be viable. You're talking about the audience inside. I am talking about its part of the cityscape. From the day it was built, Stanley Draper covered it up with those trees and prevented people from ever being able to fully incorporate it into the cityscape.

Define a chance to be viable.

Viable as a functioning building with any chance to financially support itself. If you are suggesting the city buy it as a piece of art, then let's not spend $30 mil to repair, and just seal it up and paint it up for display as people drive by. But as a functioning building it has never been successful.

And what is it with the obsession with Larry Nichols that some on this board have. They have no clue as to his motivations I guess. Larry has been unselfish with his time and resources. I dare say he could care less about owning that piece of land. If he wanted it he would just buy it. Larry doesn't have to con anybody out of anything and I seriously doubt if these posters can ever find any evidence of him cheating the city out of anything. Some people must have a serious envy/hatred of successful wealthy people.

People who say that OKC doesn't have a live theater scene just aren't looking or they live in Jacksonville. It's not Broadway quality but it is fun and entertaining.

I said robust, not that it didn't exist. What would be nice is a live theater district. I thought that was what the Arts District was for but so far, no dice.

I actually love the design of the building but I know that most people I talk to are pretty negative on it. So right off the bat it has a strike against it, and that's unfortunate because it really is unique.

Just thinking out loud....

I am not sure that the building itself is a failure. I think it has been marketed horribly... if at all. In fact I don't remember ever seeing it on any advertisement, any guide to downtown OKC, or any materials about OKC's downtown architecture. I think its current name, "Stage Center," is also horrible. When I first became aware of that name what my mind conjured up and what I actually eventually saw were two extremely different things. For one, it sounds like something that should be the centerpiece of a Renaissance Fair; and secondly, the name itself pigeon-holes its use. There are many potential uses for that building... museum, art house... with work it could be made into a corporate headquarters or a coop or even a restaurant.

I understand the maintenance argument, and maybe that is the nail in the coffin, but I haven't heard enough on that topic yet to convince me that the issues are bad enough to prevent the building's use. The building not being funded properly and the city or various arts communities allowing it to fall into disrepair is a different issue... My question would be is there something inherently wrong with that building that, if it were brought up to snuff, would still make its monthly maintenance be outrageous?

I have often heard that the problem is square footage, but you know that whole complex was built to be modular. New, larger nodes could be added at any time if that were the real problem. So then maybe the real issue is utilities... maybe there's too much dead space in the building and it costs too much to heat and cool. That certainly could be the case with 1970s technologies, but it seems to me like with the right amount of money there are so many options available today that a solution could be found.

So really then it seems like the issue is economics. The facility is largely billed as a public space, and the public at large doesn't seem to want to pay for it. So then its maintenance depends upon ticket sales, and the group that inhabits the building can't generate enough business to sell tickets at a price and a volume that will keep the doors open. Also it doesn't help that the building's use was seasonal.

The more I think about it, I think that the only way to get the building up to snuff and get it sellable/rentable again would be for the public or a donor to invest a large one-time lump sum in the building to fix it. Then after that, a use for it would have to be found that would actually generate enough revenue to sustain it. Maybe at this point an unconventional restaurant would be its best chance for survival (yes I know, it's shaped oddly.. blah blah... get out of your boring Okiethink). I doubt the building has a kitchen, so maybe add an entirely new module onto the back that is one. The modules look to me to be almost completely concrete, glass, and metal facade, so I just couldn't imagine yet another one would be that expensive in the big scheme of things. At the same time fix the building up and then sell it off to someone who would create multiple dining spaces throughout. If it's a fine dining experience then maybe you can generate a large enough ticket price and enough of them on a nightly basis to keep the building open. I mean if you just get 100 people per day spending $100 per visit and you're open year-round that's in the neighborhood of $3.6 million gross. I can't imagine that the theater shows that have performed in there in the past have been able to bring in anywhere near that. If the problem is that maintenance costs a lot, then sell the building to someone who can make more money with it.

You know the more I think about it, that's the problem. It's an economics issue. I am sure that the arts organization that 'owns' the building now wants to protect it and is holding onto it for dear life, but at this point it just needs to survive. I think it needs to be handed over to someone in the private sector at a loss to make it worthwhile to buy, and I think the city needs to offer some incentives to sweeten any deal. I also think that any deal should have a serious string attached that the building can not be demolished.

If you were a private investor and the city GAVE you the building, could you afford to repair it, fix it up and operate it at a profit?

As for it never having been marketed...people don't pay to see architecture. They pay to see the product produced in it. Many have tried and failed to make a go of it in this building. The economics don't seem to work out. So, unless the city is prepared to permanently year after year subsidize it, then there are few real alternatives.

Rover, have you never been sight seeing?

I think what he is saying is look at just about any marketing piece for any city or resort and the buildings are prominently featured. While people may not pay to see architecture directly, they sure are attracted to it. They spend money inside it (if they can), they spend money around it etc etc etc.

If architecture doesn't matter, there should be absolutely no point in creating a "showpiece" for the Convention Center. Just put the whole thing below ground and cover it with the Central Park or a surface parking lot.

The thing is with a facility like this is one theater/performance company is not going to able to pay for it, you almost have to have several different companies doing productions in there to make it break even. There is a place in the OKC market for that type of performance venue and the companies that could use it. I have worked on a proposed 1,800 seat amphitheater addition to One World Theater just outside of Austin. The original venue seats about 300 and he has many different touring acts come through in addition to arts camps and some small, local productions. Stage Center could be used for that in addition to theater if it had an owner/management company that could utilize the facility to its full potential. Then and only then could you hope to be able to make a profit.

I agree that if you're going to run this like a business that it comes down to product, but I guess where I disagree is when you say people don't pay to see architecture. I have eaten in a restaraunt at the top of the Space Needle in Seattle... not because of the food, it was quite terrible actually, but because of its location and the view. There are examples of places like this all across America. Perhaps a more local example would be the large numbers of people who were attracted to Bass Pro by the almost museum quality of the space, but ultimately stayed around to buy some product. It just seems to me that Stage Center is unique enough to have that kind of a draw... the question is what sort of business could feed off of it....

Economics encompasses a giant series of vast market sectors. I just think it is unreasonable to offer a blanket statement that the economics don't, under any circumstances, ever work out. The economics of this place being a theater don't work out? Totally agree, that has been tried a million times and it is getting nowhere fast. The economics of something else might. If I owned a highly profitable white collar company and was looking to relocate to OKC anyway and just wanted some office space in a really unique place, then this place might be worth the money. Or as a design studio. Even if this place were to cost $1 million a year to operate there are certain economics under which that works... look at all the multimillion dollar corporations around the country that own millions of dollars of corporate office space for relatively few employees. All we have done so far is the exact same thing over and over again with this building. I'm just saying before we declare it an abject failure we should at least try making it work as something other than a theater.

Rover, have you never been sight seeing?

I think what he is saying is look at just about any marketing piece for any city or resort and the buildings are prominently featured. While people may not pay to see architecture directly, they sure are attracted to it. They spend money inside it (if they can), they spend money around it etc etc etc.

If architecture doesn't matter, there should be absolutely no point in creating a "showpiece" for the Convention Center. Just put the whole thing below ground and cover it with the Central Park or a surface parking lot.

The CC and Stage Center are totally different. And no, I don't pay to drive around and site see. I will pay to go tour structures like the Breakers in Newport or Hearst Castle, Buckingham Palace, the Gaudi building or things of that nature. You are smoking something funny if you think people will come to OKC to see and tour Stage Center, no matter how much you advertise it.. I love the structure, but let's be realistic. Otherwise, Stage Center creates NO income except if its facilities are used for performances or meetings. And the economics don't play out and I challenge you to make an economic scenario where it pays for the renovation and continuing upkeep.

Quick calculation on the economics of the building, assuming $30,000,000 to update and repair the building, indicates that it would cost approximately $4.25 million per year for amortization, upkeep, utilities, etc. With 800 available seats it would mean every seat would have to return $14.50 EVERY DAY. Assuming that rent is only a part of the expenses, it is more likely that if every seat was sold out every day for at least one performance, tickets would have to run in excess of $50. The likelihood of selling out every performance, and getting premium prices would be pretty remote. So yes, I believe the economics do not favor saving the building, unless the city wants to preserve it for artistic reasons.

Oh, and this assumes no purchase price is paid, that it is a gift.

The CC and Stage Center are totally different. And no, I don't pay to drive around and site see. I will pay to go tour structures like the Breakers in Newport or Hearst Castle, Buckingham Palace, the Gaudi building or things of that nature. You are smoking something funny if you think people will come to OKC to see and tour Stage Center, no matter how much you advertise it.. I love the structure, but let's be realistic. Otherwise, Stage Center creates NO income except if its facilities are used for performances or meetings. And the economics don't play out and I challenge you to make an economic scenario where it pays for the renovation and continuing upkeep.
Ok, whatever.

I said robust, not that it didn't exist. What would be nice is a live theater district. I thought that was what the Arts District was for but so far, no dice.

I guess that depends on what your definition of robust is then. In this country, outside of NYC, I'm not familiar with any city that really has a theater district with venues that are much closer than OKC has. I'm sure you can cite some examples of a few theaters but not really a theater district. OKC has a number of theaters within about a one mile radius of downtown even if you wouldn't walk easily between them (which really isn't important anyway). People don't visit multiple theaters on the same day. Would it be nice if all of the theaters were in a two block area? Sure. But that's not a vital requirement for a good theater scene.

Does every public building return a profit? Does the Civic Center? I don't think that should be the thrust of the discussion.

Betts, neither the convention center or civic center return a profit, nor do any of the city's park facilities.

I agree that profit isn't always a good motive for public investment. However, a money pit should be a concern. It will be a VERY expensive piece of public art. If the city can afford it, great. It needs to show up on the priority list...so where would it stand? If we do this, what gets cut?

I wonder if it was part of a MAPS campaign how that would be received by the public?

My guess is poorly. This building has always been divisive. I will accept that it may be architecturally significant and historic, but that is different than being popular. As art, is it important enough to pay the enormous costs associated with it? I think most of the citizenry of OKC would say no. That said, art isn't always about popularity. It can be controversial and have a purpose. The problem with this art and asking everyone to pay for it is that it has a very high price tag. Is it significant in the cultural history of OKC? That is debatable. Is it nostalgic for some?...of course. The value of public art to a community is always debatable and controversial. This seems like a tough sell.

If $30 million was going to be spent on renovating a building, I would personally rather see it go toward First National Center or Union Station.

Lots of money is going to be needed for both places and I'm not sure where that is going to come from.

Pete, I suspect Rover is right - Stage Center would not win popular support.

If $30 million was going to be spent on renovating a building, I would personally rather see it go toward First National Center or Union Station.

Lots of money is going to be needed for both places and I'm not sure where that is going to come from.

I agree with the FNC priority. Here is an architecturally significant building, both inside and out. It is a major facility with profitable re-use possibilities. Like the Skirvin, it is culturally and historically significant in this city. And, supporting the FNC will benefit many more people with diverse tastes and interests. It would be a much easier sell to issue bonds to help the FNC than to do so for Stage Center.

Betts, neither the convention center or civic center return a profit, nor do any of the city's park facilities.
Steve is correct. But on the other hand some City owned/subsidized "venues" do turn an operational profit (Canal, Ford Center). Their are some things that Government should support and often these are the things that aren't going to ever turn a profit (they aren't designed to) and for the public good, they can/are/should be supported. But every effort should be made to spend the money wisely. There are some things that the City or any government entity should NOT be involved in as heavily as they are, if at all, but if they are involved, those things should bring a guaranteed direct monetary return on investment. (especially private for profit businesses, Bass Pro etc).


I agree with the FNC priority. Here is an architecturally significant building, both inside and out. It is a major facility with profitable re-use possibilities. Like the Skirvin, it is culturally and historically significant in this city. And, supporting the FNC will benefit many more people with diverse tastes and interests. It would be a much easier sell to issue bonds to help the FNC than to do so for Stage Center.
Maybe someone can answer this, was the public money used to save the Skirvin ever presented to voters for their approval or was it done with other discretionary funds? Not a slam towards saving the Skirvin, just wondering if public support/voter approval is a requirement for the FNC or Stage Center?

If $30 million was going to be spent on renovating a building, I would personally rather see it go toward First National Center or Union Station.

Lots of money is going to be needed for both places and I'm not sure where that is going to come from.

Although I'm a fan of the Stage Center, I have to agree with this.

Quick calculation on the economics of the building, assuming $30,000,000 to update and repair the building, indicates that it would cost approximately $4.25 million per year for amortization, upkeep, utilities, etc. With 800 available seats it would mean every seat would have to return $14.50 EVERY DAY. Assuming that rent is only a part of the expenses, it is more likely that if every seat was sold out every day for at least one performance, tickets would have to run in excess of $50. The likelihood of selling out every performance, and getting premium prices would be pretty remote. So yes, I believe the economics do not favor saving the building, unless the city wants to preserve it for artistic reasons.

It seems that everyone has preconceived notions about this building... about whether or not it should be publicly or privately funded, about whether or not it could ever be profitable, and even about whether or not it is beautiful or ugly. You have one, I have one, we all do. The only thing that most of the building's detractors as well as its proponents in this thread seem to have in common is having it locked into their heads that this building is, will always be, and can only be, a public theater. I just think that sort of thinking almost guarantees the building's demise.

Maybe someone can answer this, was the public money used to save the Skirvin ever presented to voters for their approval or was it done with other discretionary funds? Not a slam towards saving the Skirvin, just wondering if public support/voter approval is a requirement for the FNC or Stage Center?

$22 million in public funds was used to assist in the $55 million renovation of the Skirvin. The arrangement has the Skirvin hotel paying back a portion of that to the city. The assistance package passed as a simple City Council vote. There was no public vote. There was, however, a great deal of public support for the old building. Probably much more support than what the Gold Dome had when its supporters managed to get it taken off of the chopping block.

It should be noted that the amount the Arts Council applied to Stage Center to bring it up to snuff in 2010, prior to the flooding, was in the $2 million range.

I completely understand the sentiment of 'rather spend the money on x', but I am not sure I agree. Stage Center is often spoken of with the same appreciation that our state's other architectural jewel receives, Frank Lloyd Wright's Price Tower. As far as I know Stage Center is the only building in OKC with significant-enough architectural appreciation that models of it appear in New York's Museum of Modern Art.

It just feels to me like we're letting a rare Picasso slip away from us because all our benefactors are fans of Norman Rockwell.

$22 million in public funds was used to assist in the $55 million renovation of the Skirvin. The arrangement has the Skirvin hotel paying back a portion of that to the city. The assistance package passed as a simple City Council vote. There was no public vote. There was, however, a great deal of public support for the old building. Probably much more support than what the Gold Dome had when its supporters managed to get it taken off of the chopping block.

It should be noted that the amount the Arts Council applied to Stage Center to bring it up to snuff in 2010, prior to the flooding, was in the $2 million range.
I understand about public funds and had a longer post asking the question again, but saw that you answered it already...LOL
Thanks!

the thought that keeps crossing my mind is that this structure is so associated with the "old" (read "dead") downtown. Wonder what would have happened to the old theater if OKCMOA hadn't saved it. . .and how many "naysayers" there were about that part of downtown. We have so many new (library) and re-purposed/re-vitalized (Montgomery, Colcord, Myriad Gardens) facilities that the very fabric of that side of downtown has changed sigificantly. I realize that the odds don't look good, but I really wish something could be done to re-vitalize and save Stage Center. . .

$22 million in public funds was used to assist in the $55 million renovation of the Skirvin. The arrangement has the Skirvin hotel paying back a portion of that to the city. The assistance package passed as a simple City Council vote. There was no public vote. There was, however, a great deal of public support for the old building. Probably much more support than what the Gold Dome had when its supporters managed to get it taken off of the chopping block.

It should be noted that the amount the Arts Council applied to Stage Center to bring it up to snuff in 2010, prior to the flooding, was in the $2 million range.

I think the analysis for the Skirvin showed, and the expectation was that the assistance would be rewarded with repayment and the improvement in taxes collected. If the Stage Center can show the same promise, maybe there are development funds available. It may be a stretch though to really compare the economics of the two.

As far as I know Stage Center is the only building in OKC with significant-enough architectural appreciation that models of it appear in New York's Museum of Modern Art.

It just feels to me like we're letting a rare Picasso slip away from us because all our benefactors are fans of Norman Rockwell.

Instead of a model, they could probably come get the real thing for free. I wonder if NYC would be interested in buying it and moving it.

The difference between the FNC and Stage Center is you have a much better chance at turning a profit on FNC after a renovation than you do at Stage Center. FNC is a much more likely candidate for a private money rehabilitation than Stage Center.

Viable as a functioning building with any chance to financially support itself. If you are suggesting the city buy it as a piece of art, then let's not spend $30 mil to repair, and just seal it up and paint it up for display as people drive by. But as a functioning building it has never been successful.

So, the only definition of viable is being a building that financially supports itself? (I know that's not exactly what you meant.)

Have the Arts ever been self-supporting? I don't think so. I'm confident in saying they always rely partly on the benevolence of donors. What Stage Center needs is a benefactor to take it under their wing. Maybe Continental Resources could make Stage Center it's pet project.

FNC, being a commercial property, needs the right business model and sufficient investment to make it economically self-sustaining. The last owners promised a lot but delivered little.

So, the only definition of viable is being a building that financially supports itself? (I know that's not exactly what you meant.)

I guess the definition of the value of something is what someone is willing to pay for either it or its use. So, either the building must be able to support itself, or the value must be in the perception of it as culturally significant enough for all citizens to pay for it. The bigger the subsidy the more difficult the city's decision becomes. I would love for this building to be saved, but I am not exactly optimistic because I think the economic gap will be big and the support by a broad base to be lacking. Hope I am wrong.

I think the thing some of you are missing is that anyone in OKC with enough money to save it, probably doesn't like it.

Very True. With all the philantropic folks we have around here, we've yet to see any of them contribute thus far to helping the place out. There's a pretty good indicator of how people feel about it. The problem is, there aren't really many alternative locations available for the activities for the price. Freede Little Theater basically got ignored in the Civic Center remodel and it sucks. You've got places like Rose State, but at a much higher cost. Stage offered a good place for theater out of the main-stream big production events. While I've always felt the building was ugly, what happens inside of it is culturally significant.

Then maybe a new venue should be in the works. For $30 million (or whatever the renovation price tag is), you might be able to build 2 or 3 small 300 to 500 seat theaters, and create a real live theater district that isn't attached to churchs, company buildings, or school campuses.

Food for thought. A redesign to the Freede Little Theatre is estimated to cost about $9-$12million, depending upon the level of renovation (basic upgrade to complete overhaul, including re-ramping the main floor).

Fritter, I know of several very prominent civic leaders who were upset that the Little Theater was never given serious consideration for MAPS 3 and that they felt it, like several other needs, were blocked out from public knowledge while the decision of what was to be on the ballot was made behind the scenes (a process, that if they are correct, was completely unlike the original MAPS)

Fritter, I know of several very prominent civic leaders who were upset that the Little Theater was never given serious consideration for MAPS 3 and that they felt it, like several other needs, were blocked out from public knowledge while the decision of what was to be on the ballot was made behind the scenes (a process, that if they are correct, was completely unlike the original MAPS)

Did someone say something about the $250 million elephant in the room, and it's $50 million hotel uncle... and it's $140 million phase II nephew.

Fritter, I know of several very prominent civic leaders who were upset that the Little Theater was never given serious consideration for MAPS 3 and that they felt it, like several other needs, were blocked out from public knowledge while the decision of what was to be on the ballot was made behind the scenes (a process, that if they are correct, was completely unlike the original MAPS)

So, was the issue that the Maps project list needed to expand to include this, or that something on the project list was of objectionable priority and shouldn't have been included? I find it hard to believe the Little Theater would be a higher priority for either quality of life or economic development than others on the list.

Lines have to be drawn from time to time...that is what leadership is about..being FOR something, not just being against things. If the public believes this responsibility is being abused then they should vote Mick out and also the council persons whom they question regarding their decision making and leadership capabilities. Our system is a republic and not democracy in pure form. We elect people whom we expect to represent our interests best. If they don't we should get them removed. And the media should expose what they know BEFORE the voting on matters like Maps and mayoral/council elections. These prominent civic leaders also need to speak-up ON THE RECORD and DURING the process, not just afterwards. And certainly if there are illegalities involved, then the DA should be included in the discussion.