That is a whole lot of "should" required from people and organizations that so far are full of "don't". Of course, when one council member does take the stand you just described he gets a beat down from the very people and organizations you just alluded to.

That is a whole lot of "should" required from people and organizations that so far are full of "don't". Of course, when one council member does take the stand you just described he gets a beat down from the very people and organizations you just alluded to.

No, that isn't true. What I did ask was that either accusations be made or we cease with the IMPLICATIONS. Either people KNOW something or they SUSPECT. If you just suspect then you should investigate until you KNOW. Throwing insinuations around is irresponsible when you are in a leadership position. But if you KNOW something, you have a responsibility to speak up with the facts, ON THE RECORD. I believe in swift and absolute accountability, but based on facts, not suspicions and innuendos.

No, that isn't true. What I did ask was that either accusations be made or we cease with the IMPLICATIONS. Either people KNOW something or they SUSPECT. If you just suspect then you should investigate until you KNOW. Throwing insinuations around is irresponsible when you are in a leadership position. But if you KNOW something, you have a responsibility to speak up with the facts, ON THE RECORD. I believe in swift and absolute accountability, but based on facts, not suspicions and innuendos.

Then let's by all means haul people up to the council chambers and put them under oath and ask them if they conspired in any way to keep certain projects off the MAPS III proposals. That would make for some interesting drama.

You need to get real Rover - no one is saying laws were broken - just that the public was mis-lead. It is not illegal to mis-lead the public. I wish it was, but it isn't. I am sure without a doubt there were many projects that could have been considered and $770 million is a lot of money and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Even you have to admit it possible that interested parties either promoted their specific pet project and/or prevented other projects from being added, and narry a law violated or sinister act involved. Just people trying to control the distribution of 3/4 of a billion dollars.

If there was deception that led to personal gain as has been implied, then it is quite possible that there are illegalities. If there is purposeful misleading, then those FACTS need to be exposed. It is the implication without FACTS that I object to. If someone who was part of the whole process feels or felt intimidated or coerced then they should speak up ON THE RECORD. So far, the people actually involved haven't done so...only people speculating or surmising after the fact. People tend to put together 2+2 and get 6. The fact that people worked hard for projects they believe in and you believe differently does not mean there is "misleading". The list had to have a finite quality and not every project thought of or that someone felt strongly about could be included. In the end, a final list had to be presented. Of course some will feel disenfranchised when their particular project didn't make the cut or make the priority they desired...it is normal.

My personal experience in business is that it is easy to rally everyone during crisis or while growing a business. It is when there is success and there is money and power that the infighting begins. When OKC had fallen to the absolute bottom then people were willing to let strong leaders unify and lead us out of the pit. Now that we have some real money to spend, everyone wants to control it. Again, human nature.

NM - we are getting too far off topic. Back to the Stage Center.

Agreed!

So, how much is the limit of what we should spend to save the Stage Center? If it is $10 Million, is that okay? $30 MIL? $50 MIL? If we believe it has social, cultural and historical value, what should we citizens be willing to spend to preserve it?

I guess the first question would have to be, who owns it? If the City is going to commit funds then the owner is going to have to find a way to make taxpayers whole again through income on the property or the City would have to take outright ownership, which includes long term upkeep. The city should not be in the business of turning tax revenue over to private parties with no return for the taxpayer.

...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.
I know we don't always see eye-to-eye on things (and that's OK), but I couldn't agree with 95%+ of this post any more strongly (I am sure I could find something...LOL). But as someone else pointed out their are unethical things that aren't illegal or may take decades to have enough evidence to prove. Can be excrutiatingly(sp) slow to get the bad out (whatever your opinion of that may be). Short of waiting until the next election or criminal charges and/or convictions leading to removal, it is my understanding that recalls and the like aren't permitted under Oklahoma law (someone please correct me on that if mistaken).

I agree 1000% with the media comment. It is unfortunate that certain media outlets put an effective ban on anything that might be called critical reporting leading up to the vote. Doug has well documented & opined on the subject of the sharp departure from that with this last MAPS.

On the whole, powerful interests angle, it was interesting to see a proposal strongly backed by former Mayors Humphreys & Norick to get the $25 million completion of the Canal included on the MAPS 3 ballot (esp when they served as co-treasurers of the campaign). Got shot down. They don't always get what they want. No argument there. Even the sitting mayor doesn't always get his way (C.C. site preference).


I guess the first question would have to be, who owns it? If the City is going to commit funds then the owner is going to have to find a way to make taxpayers whole again through income on the property or the City would have to take outright ownership, which includes long term upkeep. The city should not be in the business of turning tax revenue over to private parties with no return for the taxpayer.
Agree here as well. The only cavet I would have is if it is being used to support "the Arts", even if run by private entities. That is something government should be doing (responsibly of course). IMO

Agreed!

So, how much is the limit of what we should spend to save the Stage Center? If it is $10 Million, is that okay? $30 MIL? $50 MIL? If we believe it has social, cultural and historical value, what should we citizens be willing to spend to preserve it?

How this question is relevant unless there are private entities willing to pick up the difference, which there haven't seemed to be? If it costs 50 Mil to return it to working order and meet building codes, fire codes, etc. then there isn't an option to spend less.

Agree here as well. The only cavet I would have is if it is being used to support "the Arts", even if run by private entities. That is something government should be doing (responsibly of course). IMO

I guess then we would have to determin if spending $20 million (minimum) on a place that barely got used when it was new is 'responsible' spending and just what are the 'arts' being supported? When you say "support the arts" what are the "arts" at Stage Center? Is it the performance venue, or the performance? Because there are a lot cheaper alternatives for venues.

The bottom line is that the Stage Center is Butt-ugly

The bottom line is that the Stage Center is Butt-ugly

That too. If the intent it to provide a venue for the arts then there are a lot cheaper ways to do that. If someone wants to say the Stage Center is the art then that needs to come from private funds. Local government should help provide the facilites, not buy the paintings.

BPD, make sure you aren't sitting on a mirror when you say that. And let me ask you as I did another harsh critique of SC, What are the most appealing of our iconic non-skyscraper architecture in you opinion?

I guess then we would have to determin if spending $20 million (minimum) on a place that barely got used when it was new is 'responsible' spending and just what are the 'arts' being supported? When you say "support the arts" what are the "arts" at Stage Center? Is it the performance venue, or the performance? Because there are a lot cheaper alternatives for venues.


That too. If the intent it to provide a venue for the arts then there are a lot cheaper ways to do that. If someone wants to say the Stage Center is the art then that needs to come from private funds. Local government should help provide the facilites, not buy the paintings.
Some valid points here. As Pete pointed out, there are several venues in the City for such things, so I guess in this case it would be the building-as-art stance. Someone suggested maybe moving it someplace else (after all it IS modular, right? LOL). Not sure if i agree with the "facilites but not the art" idea though. If that was the case, the Lanrun Monument would probably consist of just 1 or 2 statues. But on the other hand we have the Civic Center (City owned venue). Do taxpayers subsidize the performances there (especially the Broadway type ones that come through). What about the Symphan? Ballet etc? I don't know if they receive taxpayer funds directly or not?

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.

Or the long lost step brother that sets in a dark room and does nothing but complain about OKC.

How this question is relevant unless there are private entities willing to pick up the difference, which there haven't seemed to be? If it costs 50 Mil to return it to working order and meet building codes, fire codes, etc. then there isn't an option to spend less.

So are you saying save it no matter what it costs?

So are you saying save it no matter what it costs?No. I'm saying that it would be flushing 10 Mil down the drain to put that into the building if it's going to take 50 Mil to reopen and use it. If it takes 50 Mil to do the work then 50 Mil is the only option.

So with the city's limited resources, you would agreeThat to spend $50 Mil or more to preserve this building? That comes at the expense of other things the city can do, and that is OK?

So with the city's limited resources, you would agreeThat to spend $50 Mil or more to preserve this building? That comes at the expense of other things the city can do, and that is OK?Absolutely not. If you go back to all my earlier posts it's obvious I think this building is a waste of time unless private enterprise wants to do it. Many years no one stepping up have proven that not to be the case. Fire up the dozers.

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.

And for $55 million, we could've built 2 hotels, providing double the amount of hotel rooms downtown than what the Skirvin offers.

As far as the MAPS 3 selection committee, or whoever it was who decided what went on the ballot, I've always just assumed that there was a lot of behind the scenes politicking to determine what made it on the ballot. That someone is making those accusations seems like coming out and saying "water is wet!" Well, duh. Fact is, when you've got a limited budget, you're going to have limited projects. Some people are going to be unhappy that their favorite thing didn't get included. Unless there is very specific evidence of criminal wrongdoing in the selection process, it just sounds like sour grapes to me. "I didn't get what I wanted. Hrmph."

As far as Stage Center goes, it was always a controversial building. Like many have said, it's ugly as hell. Now, it's architecturally interesting, I can't help but look at it every time I walk by. I work downtown and pass by it maybe twice a week, and I always look. I remember when I was a kid I loved it. I thought it was some kind of giant jungle gym. It may be artistically significant. But in the end, it's going to cost a whole lot of money to fix, and there's not a lot of public support for it.

Suppose the city had a vote, to devote money to fix either the First National Center, or Stage Center. Through the magic of coincidence common to hypothetical questions, let's assume that they both cost the exact same amount of money to fix. Do you think the people of the city would support fixing FNC? What about Stage Center? Neither? Both?

If the people of the city don't want to fix it, should it be forced on them? If there's no private investor willing to put forth the money on his own, what other options are there? Stage Center is a very expensive performing arts venue. It has so little support that people haven't even started up a "Save Stage Center" movement with signs and donation cups and a website.

And for $55 million, we could've built 2 hotels, providing double the amount of hotel rooms downtown than what the Skirvin offers.

That's true. But there was support to save the Skirvin. People liked it, they wanted to save it. That's not the case with Stage Center. When someone supports saving one historic building, does it mean they are obligated to save them all? Can we as a city not say "this one is worth saving, this one is not". I am not arguing that we must always proceed with the most cost-effective use of funding. Sometimes it is worth spending extra to renovate certain iconic structures. But aren't we free to determine that on a case by case basis?

The Skirvin also had a plan to make the taxpayers whole. Public money spent on Stage Center would be gone forever.

As for how things got on the MAPS III list, if they did it my way that would not be an issue. List ever single project separately and let the people vote. Anything that passes gets on the list. If 10 items pass then they split the penny 10 ways, as projects become fully funded construction starts and they relinquish their 1/10 share which then gets divided up by the remaining projects. Or do it EOC style using round of voting. List all the projects and have a vote. The top 2 vote getters are removed and everyone votes again. When you get to 10 projects stop. Those are the 10 MAPS projects.

One thing is for sure, they need to stop selecting projects in closed door meetings.

As for how things got on the MAPS III list, if they did it my way that would not be an issue. List ever single project separately and let the people vote. Anything that passes gets on the list. If 10 items pass then they split the penny 10 ways, as projects become fully funded construction starts and they relinquish their 1/10 share which then gets divided up by the remaining projects. Or do it EOC style using round of voting. List all the projects and have a vote. The top 2 vote getters are removed and everyone votes again. When you get to 10 projects stop. Those are the 10 MAPS projects.

If we did it your way, then we wouldn't have an NBA team now, because the arena wasn't one of the more popular projects from the original MAPS.

Patrick, BUT that is the LEGAL way of doing a ballot. Separate propositions. The all-or-nothing (logrolling) format is illegal. The City's own councilor stated that was probably the case with the first MAPS ballot, but no one challenged it.

The Mayor's office indicated that this time around they were going to abide by the law and the State Supreme Court rulings about logrolling with MAPS 3, but the Mayor stated that he & the Council went with the all-or-nothing format because it was what the voters were "used to".

If it was unpopular at first (I don't recall which ones were/weren't) it certainly was by the time we voted for the 6 month "extension" to "finish MAPS right". Without that vote passing, there was consideration of scrapping the Arena project completely after we weren't selected for the NHL expansion team. Along with the significant amounts that the other MAPS projects were over budget.

Patrick, BUT that is the LEGAL way of doing a ballot. Separate propositions. The all-or-nothing (logrolling) format is illegal. The City's own councilor stated that was probably the case with the first MAPS ballot, but no one challenged it.

The Mayor's office indicated that this time around they were going to abide by the law and the State Supreme Court rulings about logrolling with MAPS 3, but the Mayor stated that he & the Council went with the all-or-nothing format because it was what the voters were "used to".

If it was unpopular at first (I don't recall which ones were/weren't) it certainly was by the time we voted for the 6 month "extension" to "finish MAPS right". Without that vote passing, there was consideration of scrapping the Arena project completely after we weren't selected for the NHL expansion team. Along with the significant amounts that the other MAPS projects were over budget.

The city got around this with MAPS 3 by not listing the separate projects on the ballot and making the wording vague.

Patrick: Someone who is a practicing attorney on the site mentioned by doing that it runs into another requirement of "specificity". Using an overly, broadly term of "capital improvement" (they went on for several sentences "defining" it). What was excluded? Not much.

Just as with MAPS 1, they will continue to utilize illegal ballots until someone has the means to challenge them in court. Oh, and they would have to lose. An "intent" aspect was challenged (where the Council changed their stated intent and used MAPS for Kids Use Tax money to help fund the Bass Pro deal, the court ruled they could change their intent at any time. Which is another problem with MAPS 3, none of the projects are mentioned in a legally binding way. We only have the council's "intent" and their word for it.

I thought that was why we had an oversight board, so things went where they were supposed to.

In theory, but the Oversight Board doesn't have the final say, the Council does (see the OGE substation mess). However we have probably derailed this thread enough and should get back to topic (but happy to discuss it elsewhere).

In theory, but the Oversight Board doesn't have the final say, the Council does (see the OGE substation mess). However we have probably derailed this thread enough and should get back to topic (but happy to discuss it elsewhere).


Visual acuity is important!

In reality, Maps 3 won't be used for Stage Center. Stage Center has no political value and no ground-swell of popular support. And, the land is probably worth more cleared than it is with it standing.

If it's decided that Stage Center isn't worth saving, it would be a good idea to look at the entire block for redevelopment.

Just south of SC is the Arts Council but besides some small offices, that property is really only used a couple of weeks out of the year. And that usage could be moved to the new Devon park or one of the great many new areas in the Myriad Gardens.

And then south of that is the recently obtained property presently used by Myriad Gardens staff.

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

So the city now owns the building that La Luna is in?

^ Yes.

Acquired it in September of last year.

They need to open that block of California Ave again.

They need to open that block of California Ave again.

Why,to prevent another superblock type development?Don't you know OKC needs more superblocks!Just kiddding,I agree with you.

What was/is the purpose of the six story tower in the middle of the Arts Council's land? It doesn't look like it would be good for anything. There's got to be a story there and I'd like to know what it is.

Yes, there is. You can read the rest of the story here: http://www.okchistory.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56:demise-of-fire-station-no-9&catid=40:events&Itemid=77

So did the fire station have a tower or was the whole building that tall? It would have looked cool with a glass dome on top. Thanks for the info Steve.

So did the fire station have a tower or was the whole building that tall? It would have looked cool with a glass dome on top. Thanks for the info Steve.

You would probably have to ask some of our resident fire department posters to know for sure but I know that it was a regular fire station with a tower. I'm guessing it was used to drain hoses.

The link mentioned that the glass dome was so a fireman could look out over the city for fires. Kewl. Are there any pics of the building with the glass dome? Didn't see any at the link....

The fire station that had the glass dome on it was over on Broadway, not on Walker. When McAlpine ordered the station rebuilt, it moved to the Walker'Hudson location. The tower was used for training; after urban renewal did away with the station, the training site moved out to the OSU Tech campus on Portland where it remains today.

Steve reports the report is back in and things don't look good for Stage Center...
http://newsok.com/analysis-shows-tenants-wont-return-to-oklahoma-citys-stage-center/article/3596357?custom_click=pod_lead_business

That was a fire training tower, so they could train firefighters to work multi-story fires, stairwells, etc. I think it was used for that as late as the seventies, and like Jim mentioned, replaced by the one at OSU-OKC. If you look closely at the one by McAlpine, it's not an ancient building. Probably fifties vintage, concrete.

I think it's time to move on.

It's a shame to lose a piece of architecture that is unique to the world. I was downtown in the Myriad Gardens today, sat on a bench for a while and gazed around at the city around me. With that piece of property becoming more and more valuable with the Devon Tower, Myriad Gardens revamp, Convention Center nearby, the new school, it is taking up space that could be a positive development.

It takes up a lot of space, and hasn't ever reached the potential it had. It doesn't tie in very well to the so-called urban fabric with it being set back so far from every street. It's kind of in the way. Now, if it were in use and active, people using it, I'd be saying 100% opposite of what I'm saying now.

Here are the facts:

1) It's unused, and hasn't had a ton of use over its life
2) It's in a severe state of disrepair and would cost serious money to bring it back to code
3) Even with those repairs, there's no guarantee that fact 1 could change
4) The properties around it are beginning to develop
5) It is in the middle of downtown and the land it is sitting on has more potential for use than the current building does or would, even with the repairs done.

All of that leading up to this. Let's not tear it down to tear it down. If someone has plans to re-use that site and will go forward with it, then let it come down. Let's not just demolish it for the sake of demolishing it and leave the lot empty. Let the scar not sit there. If it has to come down, let something better go up in its place relatively quickly.

Good to hear no one is moving into it.

SkyWest, your comment is an indication of why this won't be the same as the SandRidge Commons debate. On SandRidge Commons, right or wrong, SandRidge did not make a compelling case to urbanists that there was a higher and better use for the property on which they were wanting to clear older buildings. So there was a natural alliance between the urbanists and preservation community (the architectural community was an ally on their side, but certainly not in any strong, organized sense). On this discussion the leading advocate will be the architectural community; I do not sense a strong voice on this matter by the preservationists (who are still battle scarred and worn out from SandRidge), and it's entirely possible the urbanists will see a higher and better use and sit this one out.

As I mentioned on this thread earlier, the "aesthetics" of Stage Center are just not compatible with that area. The design of this structure is unique and certainly is not cookie cutter but the materials and color of the building have much to be desired. It is not easy on the eyes and it is very brutalistic looking. The colors are hideous and the concrete is very stained. The building appearance is very worn and dated, not to mention the liability and structural defects of the building. I have to agree with others, it is going to be "the best and highest possible use" of this land. I just do not see the Stage Center as being a viable option to rehabilitate due to the cost prohibitive nature. I could see a new mid or high rise convention hotel in it's place or perhaps another HQ's high rise being developed!

It pains me to see it happen, but if SC were a person, it wouldn't be unfair to liken SC's situation to resting in the hospice wing long enough that nearly everyone who intends to has stopped by to pay respects, and it's now down to 1-2 close family members, and an angel sitting in the corner, waiting ... just waiting.

SkyWest, your comment is an indication of why this won't be the same as the SandRidge Commons debate. On SandRidge Commons, right or wrong, SandRidge did not make a compelling case to urbanists that there was a higher and better use for the property on which they were wanting to clear older buildings. So there was a natural alliance between the urbanists and preservation community (the architectural community was an ally on their side, but certainly not in any strong, organized sense). On this discussion the leading advocate will be the architectural community; I do not sense a strong voice on this matter by the preservationists (who are still battle scarred and worn out from SandRidge), and it's entirely possible the urbanists will see a higher and better use and sit this one out.

As a self-proclaimed urbanist, I have no problem seeking the active removal of suburban structures downtown. I do agree with SkyWest though, just let it sit there and rot (so long as it doesn't become unsafe or a homeless hangout) until something better comes along. Even a couple of concrete boxes are better than a vacant lot. I would like to see the City re-open California as soon as possible. If nothing else it will add 30 to 40 on-street parking spaces near MBG.

As a self-proclaimed urbanist, I have no problem seeking the active removal of suburban structures downtown. I do agree with SkyWest though, just let it sit there and rot (so long as it doesn't become unsafe or a homeless hangout) until something better comes along. Even a couple of concrete boxes are better than a vacant lot. I would like to see the City re-open California as soon as possible. If nothing else it will add 30 to 40 on-street parking spaces near MBG.


Have you written your city councilman yet about re-opening California as soon as possible? I am guessing you probably have not because he would likely have responded that he has no clout in OKC, only Jacksonville. If he had any knowledge about OKC he might have added that the Arts Council has laid claim to that stretch you want re-opened and there is no way that it could be pried from their grip.

Popsy, is it really necessary to get so nasty responding to "Just the facts"? There are a lot of expats who still want to be a part of the OKC discussion and are enthusiastic about where it's going (the owner of this site included). I think the world of them myself, and sometimes they're better able to think outside the box.

Steve, did not realize what I wrote was nasty. I just rechecked and I did not call anyone stupid or an idiot or any of the other less than respectful names used in this forum from time to time. Which part did you find to be particularly nasty?

I tend to agree with Kerry that reopening California would be a beneficial thing. Who owns the easement is not relevant to actually addressing the issues of reopening the street. We're talking about making the sw side of downtown a normal city again, that requires normal block circulation as well. There is no detour around the issue, even if there is around the block...

Steve, did not realize what I wrote was nasty. I just rechecked and I did not call anyone stupid or an idiot or any of the other less than respectful names used in this forum from time to time. Which part did you find to be particularly nasty?

"names" don't necessarily equal nasty. I think it was the "club" you used to belittle his opinion, i.e., if you don't live here, you shouldn't be participating in these discussions.

The problem with that argument is... how many people who wield enormous influence actually live in Nichols Hills or Edmond?

The problem with that argument is... how many people who wield enormous influence actually live in Nichols Hills or Edmond?
. . . but we all should still have the right to respectfully participate, offer opinions. . .and plant "seeds" without being belittled.

Right, of course. Either you have it one way, or the other. But if we're going to pull out technicalities, you can't discredit someone because they live in Jacksonville and then agree wholeheartedly with the Edmondite in the same breath.

Fortunately we are generally accepting of people's ideas, and willing to talk about ideas. In fact, the most frustrating form of mis communication we have on here is when people try and re-frame debates in personal contexts, because they've ran out of their own ideas and are too ego-maniacal to admit someone has a better idea.

. . . you can't discredit someone because they live in Jacksonville and then agree wholeheartedly with the Edmondite in the same breath..

Totally agree. . .because it's the "idea" that counts. . . not where "it" is from.


. Fortunately we are generally accepting of people's ideas, and willing to talk about ideas. In fact, the most frustrating form of mis communication we have on here is when people try and re-frame debates in personal contexts, because they've ran out of their own ideas and are too ego-maniacal to admit someone has a better idea.

Hear!! Hear!! Sometimes you have to look at the kernal that is in the nut rather than the "nut" itself!!

The problem with that argument is... how many people who wield enormous influence actually live in Nichols Hills or Edmond?

Actually, I think that is apples to oranges. People in the metropolitan area should have and do have a vested interest in having a strong core. Cities rot from the inside out. They wield influence often because they have huge investments in all parts of the city and are hurt or benefited by the total health of the city. To discredit the interest of those in Nichols Hills or Edmond is like saying the head isn't important to the heart or the lungs somehow don't have a vested interest in the liver. The problem in the past has been that the various parts of town didn't care about or were at odds with other parts. That led to no one caring about the core.

This isn't to say the opinion of out of state members isn't important, but they have a different kind of interest, unless they own properties or businesses here.