Where did the name Stage Center originate?

I find that name very interesting and very unique especially for being in Okc. This seems like something you would see in NYC or Chicago.

Latest suggestions for Stage Center.... restaurant and art gallery?

Art gallery might work in a technical sense...no windows so more display capable walls, and a lack of UV to fight. However, given the size and cost, if it is a for-profit gallery the quality of the art and the prices would have to be pretty high, I would guess.

As a restaurant, would lack of windows be a problem? Plus, a new and better ventilation system would probably be required...and maybe some saftety systems.

For the cost renovation - that would be some very expensive food. There are not very many $20 to $30 million restaurants.

So I drove downtown Sunday afternoon to visit Stage Center in person and take pics. It's larger and more impressive than what I remember and appears on the outside to be in good shape. Obviously needs renovation, but no major reconstruction that I could see. The surrounding grounds are not bad either, just in need of some TLC. The main problem I noticed was several street people hanging about. I'm a big guy and didn't feel like hang ing around long unless I wanted someone to approach me asking for money or a smoke.

But the thought struck me - what happend in the past to cause a once viable theatre operation and impressive structure to be essentially abandoned? Was it lack of need? Poor management by the city? How exactly did it fail? These are important questions to answer before embarking on a project to revive the place. Must learn from the past to avoid repeating those mistakes.

This place is going to get demolished and a really nice hotel will go in

Sadly, that's not an unlikely outcome. Wish it were.

But the thought struck me - what happend in the past to cause a once viable theatre operation and impressive structure to be essentially abandoned?Its history indicates that it was never seriously viable. It took a charitable grant from the Ford Foundation to get it built in the first place. The original occupant went belly up only a few years later, after having been successful for a much longer period in less lavish surroundings. Subsequent occupants didn't do much better. The phrase "white elephant" comes to mind...

I have no strong feeling either way so far as the structure or location is concerned; I'm just correcting the assumption that the operation was "once viable."

Why is this spot so coveted for demolition and new development?

There is land available all over downtown Okc, in fact there is a huge parcel of vacant land just to the west of the Stage Center. People here are acting as if this MUST be destroyed for a revolutionary type project that will take it's place. I don't get it but, I do hope that the Stage Center is reworked and becomes a destination focal point for downtown Okc. This is a type of building that is rarely seen and Okc should be proud to have something so unique.

Also nobody answered my question as to how Stage Center got it's name?

I don't want it to go. That said, I don't see anyone holding a presser standing by a giant check made out to the We Saved It! Inc.

As to why that spot would be desired by some ... seriously? It's only located cattywampus to the new cc site, right across from MBG, and it's oh so close in to the Devon site. and a simply hop to the arena and the upcoming park. What's not to like about a location like that?

I understand that the Stage Center location is very good. But take a look around and there are vacant lots everywhere and very near to this same area with nothing that would need to be destroyed.

Why is this spot so coveted for demolition and new development?

There is land available all over downtown Okc, in fact there is a huge parcel of vacant land just to the west of the Stage Center.

That lot to the west is going to be a new elementary school.

Found this on youtube. It plays really fast so get your finger on the pause button. The roof of Stage Center must be made out of window screens to let that much water in.

-kleYMXWiOI

just the facts.... the problem is the loading docks are below grade..... there was a torrential downpour and the loading docks acted as a funnel putting all the water from the downslope into the basement level... And it had happened before... Maybe be an interesting building but has some huge design flaws

just the facts.... the problem is the loading docks are below grade..... there was a torrential downpour and the loading docks acted as a funnel putting all the water from the downslope into the basement level... And it had happened before... Maybe be an interesting building but has some huge design flaws

Watch the video. The flood water was in places that are 10 feet above the ground outside the window. You can see where it came in throught the roof because all of the ceiling tiles have extensive water damage. This wasn't just the basement flooding, there appeared to be standing water inside the elevated portions of the building for an extended period of time.

On further review, the ceiling and wall damage looks like it might be from the Arts Council building next door. However, the basement of the Stage Center seems to be structually unsound based on a few of the photos.

Now I think I understand why Stage Center was passed over for MAPs. Just too expensive. The costs to renovate + costs to operate + costs to maintain = astronomical. Sad.

But yeah the location is great for redevelopment - practically in the shadow of Devon Tower with Myriad Gardens across the street.

Where did the name Stage Center originate?

I find that name very interesting and very unique especially for being in Okc. This seems like something you would see in NYC or Chicago.

It is exactly something you would expect to see in a more progressive city..

Please, Stage Center would have NEVER been built in Chicago or New York City. Just proposing a 500 seat theater on 3 1/2 acres would have gotten the developer laughed out of town.

It was proposed FROM New York City, dude. You need a new screenname...

I think Spartan mentioned this before, but I think the trees around the Stage Center should be removed to really expose the architectural impact of the positive and negative spaces that Stage Center creates. I kind of think of Stage Center as an extension of the Myriad gardens. There is plenty of space around the area for development. You have to imagine the future park, removal of I-40, and the likely convention center to the south. I know It would be expensive to fix, and very little interest in fixing it. Before it's fate is sealed I'd just like to say I as a citizen of this city that I appreciate and value it. I have little hope that it will survive to the next decade, and can accept that.

I think locals naturally see it as an extension of the Myriad Gardens just because of the festival set-up in the Spring, when most people have the fondest memories of the park. ABryant is absolutely right though, and Lackmeyer has done a few articles more recently about the point. Stanley Draper was a conservative old fuddy duddy who thought the Myriad Convention Center was a thing of beauty, the man was clearly not qualified to weigh in on good design, although he did a lot of great things for OKC.

He beat Johansen just by simply shrouding his landmark with ugly trees. The trees were even hand-picked to specifically grow out of control and look as ugly as possible as fast as possible (which is funny because we all agree that more trees are needed, so how could you oppose trees? lol. it's the perfect thing to hide behind.), and he wanted to make sure that all of the most important vantage points were covered up. Architecture is all about vantage point, especially when you try and create illusions with depth and other elements.

If we really ARE going to tear down the Stage Center, as it seems might happen, well let's at least get rid of those trees and let the Stage Center be appreciated as it should have been for just a year, or even a few months. People will be surprised once those ugly trees are gotten rid of, I think it will make a dramatic improvement. Maybe people will suddenly have a change of heart, but I doubt it. This is a group of people who just see land values, and they're blind to style and cultural value, and they've somehow constructed this warped story line of the Stage Center being the problem.

They've torn up the trees along Walker for Project 180 on the west side, bordering the Stage Center. When I passed by it the other day, I wish they were still there. It has become even more imposing and ugly without the trees. I'd also like to mention that there is not really a front and back to this building, but it really tries to show off the parts of buildings that most would try to hide. It is an incredibly unapproachable building.

Does it need an edifice with a nice little pitched roof perfectly centered over the front door in order for you to be able to approach it?

It was proposed FROM New York City, dude. You need a new screenname...

So what - they didn't build it there (which proves my point).

So what - they didn't build it there (which proves my point).

The Guggenheim in NYC was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright who was from Wisconsin. Would it prove a point if it had built in Wisconsin instead or if the Price tower had built in NYC?

The Guggenheim in NYC was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright who was from Wisconsin. Would it prove a point if it had built in Wisconsin instead or if the Price tower had built in NYC?

Maybe you didn't read the post Spartan was referring to. I said a 500 seat theater on 3 acres would never be built in Chicago or New York City. To refute that Spartan said the Stage Center was designed in New York City. You know my reply.

...or were you really going to compare this to Stage Center?

http://www.mapseeing.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/windowslivewriterguggenheimmuseum-a26cmapa12c9a0ea23f.jpg

Maybe you didn't read the post Spartan was referring to. I said a 500 seat theater on 3 acres would never be built in Chicago or New York City. To refute that Spartan said the Stage Center was designed in New York City. You know my reply.

...or were you really going to compare this to Stage Center?

http://www.mapseeing.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/windowslivewriterguggenheimmuseum-a26cmapa12c9a0ea23f.jpg

I did read your post, Kerry and it didn't change my point in the least. I have been to both the Guggenheim and the Stage Center and I'm not comparing them at all. I think that NYC would love to have a building like Stage Center. You're right that it wouldn't be in Manhatten on 3 acres because the land cost would be prohibitive but the architecture would certainly be appreciated.

"Stage Center" appears to be--and probably is--a completely non-functional (and fairly ugly, in a sort of neglected concrete and hamster playground-esque motif) reminder of The Popularity of Neo-Prairie Minimalist, Semi-NewArtThinkArchitectural Fusion Building Building.

I think the "less is more" principle--pioneered by the Bauhaus School and Mies van der Rohe--should be applied to that property.

Or at least the structure, located, thereon.

(Yet, somehow . . . I still mourn the untimely demise of The Biltmore back in the '70s. And so it goes . . .
At the same time my elation at the restoration of The Skirvin can barely be contained.).

Simple Translation:
The Building is Not Appealing.
It Needs To Go.
Except, perhaps, as a Background Icon for The Festival of The Arts.
And a playground for the kids who want to move beyond "Face Painting" into the area of "Proto Graffiti".

I think that NYC would love to have a building like Stage Center. You're right that it wouldn't be in Manhatten on 3 acres because the land cost would be prohibitive but the architecture would certainly be appreciated.

Fair enough. My original comment was in regards to the 3 acres.

Stage Center is what a New Yorker would want another city to have. In fact, that is exactly how it ended up in OKC.

Point: ‘An Oklahoma City landmark’

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-13078-point-‘an-oklahoma-city-landmark’.html

Counterpoint: Investing wisely

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-13077-counterpoint-investing-wisely.html

NYC isn't a daring architectural city btw. Most of NYC is very boring architecture but interesting in its density and urbanity. Chicago is more of an "architectural" city than NYC. There is no reason to believe the Stage Center would be revered there. Is is historically significant to architects? Maybe (or apparently so). Does it "say something" to the common man...probably not. Is it beautiful? Not in my opinion. Is it unusual? Absolutely. Is is admired and copied? I don't think so. Is it functional? Only in a limited way. Is the style lasting? No. Is it controversial. Absolutely. Should OKC save it? Who knows.

Does it need an edifice with a nice little pitched roof perfectly centered over the front door in order for you to be able to approach it?

I guess that's your attempt at being a smartass, but I know exactly where the entrance to the StageCenter is. Try this with another person. I'm also pretty sure I'd be able to find the entrance to any building, regardless of an innovative design or a cliche' cookie-cutter front door. But the Stage Center is UNAPPROACHABLE. Tell me, do you ever just feel like walking off the sidewalk to walk down the suburban lawn that leads to nothing but a concrete basement wrapping the entire building? Oh, and there's nothing remotely unique about this material, or any of the material; static, blank, and cold. For a majority of the building, there is NO street-level interest. In fact, the only time you're even close to the building from the sidewalk is the extended entrance and some useless looking architectural flairs. If you were to try and walk up to the building to look-over its cool architecture, you'd realize that you're now facing a concrete dead-end with all the neat details over your head and way out of reach. But then again, the corrugated metal isn't something most people want to get a closer look at anyways. It's real attractive. Do you ever notice the loading docks that have more visibility than the actual entrance? Or that everything that is interesting about the building is completely out of a pedestrian's reach? The building isn't inviting, and I bet that most people wouldn't even know there is a theatre inside; no transparency or interest that makes you want to go inside. Lack of citizen knowledge about the history and use of this structure. Don't even get me started on the success this building has "had". You're so biased about this building you don't even present clear rebuttals against opposing opinions, instead you resort to assuming that a particular person is beneath you, ignorant, or doesn't understand. Or my personal favorite from you: instantly becoming a grammar teacher.

Stop projecting Spartan. Be ready to reject your own opinions. Fallable. You may be wrong. Sorry bud.

Anyways, I'm all for the Stage Center overcoming the lack of functionality over form, by becoming a viable community asset. But how plausible is that if it never had the love and support from the community in the first place? Just sayin'.

They've torn up the trees along Walker for Project 180 on the west side, bordering the Stage Center. When I passed by it the other day, I wish they were still there. It has become even more imposing and ugly without the trees. I'd also like to mention that there is not really a front and back to this building, but it really tries to show off the parts of buildings that most would try to hide. It is an incredibly unapproachable building.

Very true, it is an unapproachable building. When I was a kid I had no idea what the place was. Only later when we went to a show there in the eighth grade did I realize it was a theater. I am torn on the fate of the building. Part of me sees it as unique and one of the few pieces of the Pei Plan that came to fruition. On the other hand, I think the place is cumbersome and ugly.

Two interesting links from the AIA Central Oklahoma web site...

Frank Gehry speaks about Stage Center (video):
http://www.aiacoc.org/weekly/GEHRY-MUMMERS%20lo-res.mov

AIA Central Oklahoma's Position Paper on Stage Center:
http://www.aiacoc.org/weekly/Stage-Center-Position-Paper.pdf

If the local AIA chapter supports keeping it, that is fine, but they shouldn't make stuff up about the place. It makes me wonder if they are lying to me (the reader) or to themselves and have come to a false conclusion.


and as an integral component of downtown OKC’s
arts, cultural, and recreational community,

It has never been that.

Letter from OU Regent Max Weitzenhoffer on Stage Center:

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-13174-max-on-mummers-mack.html

This place seems doomed.

Pete, I would have agreed with you a few weeks ago. It may be doomed. I really wish I could share all the details I'm hearing on this property ... let's just say it ain't dead yet, and the more I watch and listen, the more convinced I am this is NOT a repeat of SandRidge Commons. This is a much more nuanced conversation ....
As an aside: I realize there are people on this site who get frustrated with comments like this - that they can't understand why I can't just provide all that I know. I would encourage you to visit my blog and read Telling Stories (http://blog.newsok.com/okccentral/2011/10/03/telling-stories/) - it's probably the best opportunity I've had to open the curtain and show the challenges I face in trying to inform readers while also dealing with those who are involved in the stories I try to report. I think people get too caught up in the idea that everything is black or white ... there is a lot of gray ...

Will the proposals ever be made public? If so, when?

Steve,

I get why you can't share all you learn. Several fields have that particular constraint. Just wanted to say it's nice that you share at the level you can. I have become rather skeptical on SC having much of a prayer, but I still really and truly hope I find out I am just too jaded on the matter.

Letter from OU Regent Max Weitzenhoffer on Stage Center:

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-13174-max-on-mummers-mack.html

Yep, that matches my memory exactly...

I saw "Glengarry Glen Ross" there about 10 years ago, and I thought the "in the round" aspect of the production added greatly. However, the intimate nature of that play probably lends itself to that production style more than most. It would also be great for one-man shows, comedy and the like. I also saw an ACM masterclass a few years ago with Steven Drozd and thought the setting was outstanding.

Then again, I'm certainly no Max Weitzenhoffer, and defer to his knowledge of theater industry as it exists today.

Edit: oops, wrong salesman play.

Guys, the property is being sold and a Wal-Mart neighborhood market will be built in its place as the first downtown grocery store.

Will be suburban with a large parking lot out front and look similar to this one in downtown Dallas:
http://nomadme.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/dallas-walk-8-6-08-014.jpg

Surely you jest.

Surely you jest.

The site is only 2.7 acres, Even if was turned into a grocery store, there wouldn't be much of a parking lot. As for a Neighborhood Market - I would welcome it, but it probably wouldn't be the best location for a grocery store.

Patrick is being silly.

I guess that's your attempt at being a smartass, but I know exactly where the entrance to the StageCenter is. Try this with another person. I'm also pretty sure I'd be able to find the entrance to any building, regardless of an innovative design or a cliche' cookie-cutter front door. But the Stage Center is UNAPPROACHABLE. Tell me, do you ever just feel like walking off the sidewalk to walk down the suburban lawn that leads to nothing but a concrete basement wrapping the entire building? Oh, and there's nothing remotely unique about this material, or any of the material; static, blank, and cold. For a majority of the building, there is NO street-level interest. In fact, the only time you're even close to the building from the sidewalk is the extended entrance and some useless looking architectural flairs. If you were to try and walk up to the building to look-over its cool architecture, you'd realize that you're now facing a concrete dead-end with all the neat details over your head and way out of reach. But then again, the corrugated metal isn't something most people want to get a closer look at anyways. It's real attractive. Do you ever notice the loading docks that have more visibility than the actual entrance? Or that everything that is interesting about the building is completely out of a pedestrian's reach? The building isn't inviting, and I bet that most people wouldn't even know there is a theatre inside; no transparency or interest that makes you want to go inside. Lack of citizen knowledge about the history and use of this structure. Don't even get me started on the success this building has "had". You're so biased about this building you don't even present clear rebuttals against opposing opinions, instead you resort to assuming that a particular person is beneath you, ignorant, or doesn't understand. Or my personal favorite from you: instantly becoming a grammar teacher.

Stop projecting Spartan. Be ready to reject your own opinions. Fallable. You may be wrong. Sorry bud.

Anyways, I'm all for the Stage Center overcoming the lack of functionality over form, by becoming a viable community asset. But how plausible is that if it never had the love and support from the community in the first place? Just sayin'.

Not to be cryptic, but the Stage Center projects different things for different people. Architecture of this type can even be a mirror for one's own soul.. I'd write a longer response, but I just don't have time.

Not to be cryptic, but the Stage Center projects different things for different people. Architecture of this type can even be a mirror for one's own soul.. I'd write a longer response, but I just don't have time.

It's that age old question of what does this painting mean to the artist, vs. what does it mean to me... that sort of thing I take it? Interesting, I never really thought of architecture in that sense before.

Architecture is the most public of all the arts.

I hope my soul doesn't mirror a concrete box.

Unfortunately, this building seems to be architectural self indulgence. It is architecture for esoteric architects, not for the public's benefit. In art, many artists are self indulgent and could care less if anyone else likes it. But difference between this type of public art and others is the cost of maintenance.

Never have like this building, looks like a big gerbil fun cage or something. ;)

I think my late grandfather said it best, I used to take him to Taylor's every weekend, when we would drive by the Stage Center he always stated---when are the going to finish that darned thing. Like my grandfather, I think it looks like they ran out of money after the frame work was done and left it.

It's that age old question of what does this painting mean to the artist, vs. what does it mean to me... that sort of thing I take it? Interesting, I never really thought of architecture in that sense before.

Well, the architectural style that Johansen chose is called brutalism, which essentially is a deconstruction of a more elaborate style. It is then supposed to project and mirror something else while at the same time presenting something very minimalist. A good example that I think illustrates the concept is on the Georgetown campus in DC, where they built a new brutalist library that attempted to mimic the design of a Georgetown landmark across the quad.

The library:
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS2GZS7DVlpxTlj9I0JXJ_JVgukMv74C ORRFcvtY4nF37VPzYZE

Healy Hall:
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQDsAyc_ItMK7JQF4cUPzguv-D_5o7JKU8R85U71HZjeAKBbqtV

Here is everything most people need to know about brutalism:

http://factoidz.com/brutalism/


The conclusion is my favorite part.


In conclusion, post-war reconstruction was largely carried out in the Brutalist style, which was a derivative of Modernism. Brutalism was associated with a socialist ideology: it tried to eradicate hierarchical distinctions between building types and, to some extent, between people. Unfortunately, concrete weathers badly and the buildings quickly deteriorated. Brutalism became extremely unpopular with the public. The failure of Brutalist structures was a symptom of urban decay, and led to the unpopularity of both the architectural style and the ideology behind it.

Just saw on the "Save Stage Center" Facebook page that they are expecting the proposals soon.

Should be interesting to see what the come up with.

Here is everything most people need to know about brutalism:

http://factoidz.com/brutalism/


The conclusion is my favorite part.

Well let's not talk about other architectural motives that derive from egalitarianism...

Brutalism is hardly my favorite architecture, but come on, let's be fair toward an entire school of thought.

Are the proposals being discussed involving the expenditure of public money, or private money?

We'll see, I would hope to find a mixture of both. The thing is, if you want to get rid of the Stage Center, that's still going to be a public expense. There's not a non-profit or developer or corporation (have I vaguely referred to all the suspects here? lol) that is going to demolish that as a civic donation, because doing so is an idea driven by bottom line. No matter what happens with the site, they will make sure that demolition or renovation costs go to the public and potential profits go to the private sector.

This is about them seeing an opportunity for themselves on a site where there currently sits a quasi-public (owned by an arts foundation) arts venue. And the two factors that I see as most important is the distinction that this area is just surrounded by empty lots that are more ripe for development, and the fact that regardless of personal preference it's still hard to deny the architectural significance of the Stage Center.

While I would concur that there is a public expense associated with razing the Stage Center, I would offer that its a one-time expense - you only tear down the building once.

I would not advocate the use of public funds on an ongoing basis purely for the purpose of preserving the Stage Center. We have numerous creative, civic-minded individuals who could likely envision a more practical use for the land on which the building sits. And I'll freely admit I'm among those who find no personal fascination with the architecture of the building. I realize this opinion may incur the ire of some here in this thread, and for that I apologize, but all I can offer here is an honest opinion that the time has come for a new use for the property. I think spending public money to preserve it is throwing good money after bad.

I remember when the "Mummers" first opened, and even back then there were mechanical and practical problems with the building, all exacerbated for various reasons over the last forty years, and brought to a head with the flooding issues. I think the time to replace it is long overdue.

Just my opinion.

-David