I don't see this as the end of the world or even a failure, just a huge missed opportunity.

I'm also sure the demolition and design will get approved with little real resistance.

Agree! Thanks for an "objective" point of view. Some people seem to have gotten to emotionally attached concerning this development. These same people would gripe and complain if it was an iconic 60 story tower with stunning views and architecture. Living in Dallas, there are several mid rises either breaking ground or proposed and the residents are not complaining at all. Once again, i dare say, tear down that ugly, hideous structure of Stage Center!!!

What if a developer in Dallas wanted to tear down Reunion Tower to build a 15 story office building?

Some people seem to have gotten to emotionally attached concerning this development.

That is a very good thing and a indication of how many people really care about what happens in OKC.

Will you ever be satisfied then?

What if someone proposed a 60 floor building, would you support the project? You probably wouldn't because you would be afraid financing would fall through after the Stage Center was demo'd.

People need to remove their emotions from this. This thread has gotten ridiculous. Also proves a point that this forum largely has a one track mind, if there appears to be a motion to go a different direction, everyone will suddenly change their minds and go that way, whatever that direction is.

Yes, I would be satisfied with a 60 story building. I would even be satisfied with a 30 story building or possibly even a 20 story building at minimum as long as it is good architecture.

This building isn't bad as shown in the rendering. In fact, its great by OKC standards, but in the grand scheme of things we are destroying a very special landmark for a building that isn't really that special.

What if a developer in Dallas wanted to tear down Reunion Tower to build a 15 story office building? Not going to happen! Besides it appears you have become to emotionally attached with this development. First it is Walmart and it's domination in the OKC market, then it is about how OKC does not measure to your standards. You seem to be very unhappy living in OKC. Question? What are you doing to make OKC a more viable city to live in? Why do you continue to live in OKC? As other posters have mentioned, you constantly put a negative spin on OKC so if you are so unhappy living there why do you continue to be miserable? Just saying.

What if a developer in Dallas wanted to tear down Reunion Tower to build a 15 story office building?

Reunion tower is:

a) open to the public
b) usable
c) notable to the skyline
d) attached to a very good hotel
e) has a restaurant that is open today and provide a use

Stage Center is:

a) closed to the public
b) damaged and non functioning
c) notable only to those familiar with architecture or have otherwise educated themselves of it
d) sits by itself taking up an entire city block
e) has no public or private use


So how is a 15 story corporate tower a better use than what is currently there?

Even if the tower is open to G&E only, and has a hotel and a restaurant:

a) the ground floor would be open to the public
b) it would be functional and not a dark void
c) would have an architectural impact on the park, and a small skyline impact
d) would also take up an entire city block
e) would have some public use on the street and in the hotel, and a lot of private use elsewhere.

What if a developer in Dallas wanted to tear down Reunion Tower to build a 15 story office building?

Reunion Tower and the Stage Center are not equal.

Reunion Tower and the Stage Center are not equal.

I know. Reunion Tower is an iconic landmark in the Dallas skyline, while Stage Center is not. I was simply using it to illustrate the point that a specific site sometimes determines what should be the minimum acceptable level of development.

Not going to happen! Besides it appears you have become to emotionally attached with this development. First it is Walmart and it's domination in the OKC market, then it is about how OKC does not measure to your standards. You seem to be very unhappy living in OKC. Question? What are you doing to make OKC a more viable city to live in? Why do you continue to live in OKC? As other posters have mentioned, you constantly put a negative spin on OKC so if you are so unhappy living there why do you continue to be miserable? Just saying.

People have different reasons for living where they do. Why do you choose to live in Austin? Why don't you move back to OKC? Is it because you have to for your job or is it because Austin offers a standard of living and palate of amenities you can't find in OKC?

I don't see this as the end of the world or even a failure, just a huge missed opportunity.

I'm also sure the demolition and design will get approved with little real resistance.

Likely, and catch22 is right in that this tower will be of better use than the Stage Center that is currently sitting and rotting. I definitely expected more though given the hype surrounding this project.

And every single one of those persons is being nothing less than asinine. That might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on this forum.

Wow! What an intolerant attitude. Everyone has a right to their opinion and just because theirs is different from yours shouldn't make it asinine or ridiculous. Maybe there is a reason Stage Center is a "one of a kind" structure. I think SC was a bad fit from the time its design was forced on us and even less so now that it is in such disrepair, but I can respect the opinions that find it iconic.

I am surprised that Pete Delaney did not have a grander vision for this development. For being the Chairman of Greater Oklahoma City Chamber, you would think this would be a bigger development, and it seems like they are not building with any room for growth. Why would you build just enough space, and not consider growth for the future? But I guess we need to understand who is driving the height/design? OG&E or Rainey Williams? You would think a company the size of OG&E would need at least 20 stories...

I don't see this as the end of the world or even a failure, just a huge missed opportunity.

I'm also sure the demolition and design will get approved with little real resistance.

With all due respect, I think this is somewhat premature thing to say considering (a) nobody really knows what was proposed for this site besides what has been presented here, (b) there is an almost guaranteed mid to high rise hotel going up on the south side of the gardens, with rumors of more to come.

Even though I would personally have liked a taller tower, I am absolutely not in favor of scuttling a pretty good development (or one that seemed pretty good 48 hours ago) for one that is nothing short of excellent, whatever that might be. Likely it would never be good enough, and the SC would still continue to rot.

What if we ended up with something like this?

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/146626128/original.jpg

It's not 60 floors so it's not worthy.

What if we ended up with something like this?

Remember, Williams was quoted as saying 14-16 stories for the OG&E tower and 8-12 for the other. In the renderings provided, the buildings are 15 and 9 stories.

In the picture you linked, both buildings are about 25 stories. Unless something changes radically, this development won't be anywhere near that scale.

If it was, you'd be seeing a lot less disappointment.

Those buildings are 21 & 20 stories respectively.

Regardless, what is shown for this project is 15 and 9 stories, with a maximum of 16 and 12.

I am surprised that Pete Delaney did not have a grander vision for this development. For being the Chairman of Greater Oklahoma City Chamber, you would think this would be a bigger development, and it seems like they are not building with any room for growth. Why would you build just enough space, and not consider growth for the future? But I guess we need to understand who is driving the height/design? OG&E or Rainey Williams? You would think a company the size of OG&E would need at least 20 stories...

It's not about the height, it's about the amount of square footage required for the building. With such a long horizontal footprint, it more than likely cost a lot less to build wide than tall. What's restricting the height is the 3 plus acres available to build on.

Will you ever be satisfied then?

What if someone proposed a 60 floor building, would you support the project? You probably wouldn't because you would be afraid financing would fall through after the Stage Center was demo'd.

People need to remove their emotions from this. This thread has gotten ridiculous. Also proves a point that this forum largely has a one track mind, if there appears to be a motion to go a different direction, everyone will suddenly change their minds and go that way, whatever that direction is.Bchris is right. This thing sucks. Really disappointed in this and now we going to be stuck with it for years and years. Ugggghhh! >_<

It's not 60 floors so it's not worthy.At 21 floors, no it not worthy. Who the hell said it has to be 60 floors for it to be worthy? I said it should at LEAST be 35 floors and even 25 floors would be acceptable.

Reunion Tower and the Stage Center are not equal.Neither is referencing to the Khalifa Tower or Empire State Building, but people have been doing that.

This project reminds me of the Sheraton Century Center development. I don't like the city block sized 3 story building base with the poor integration of the towers, appear to be a stuck on afterthought.

I like this buildings integration of building base of retail, parking and tower...
http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/1401-lawrence-view-2-revised-sky-editsmaller_600.jpg (http://s278.photobucket.com/user/gandjdunlap/media/1401-lawrence-view-2-revised-sky-editsmaller_600.jpg.html)

what would be great at this point, is if OGE demolished the stage center, then took their multimillion dollar project, and the second possible tower with its tenant and built a 50 story building in Tulsa instead, citing citizen disapproval as their reason.

Setting standards for development low out of fear of losing projects is the sign of a small city. "Big league" cities set standards high and expect them to be met. OG&E is NOT leaving OKC anyway. And the Seattle comparison is a poor one - the problem wasn't with the poor design of a building by a private company in an area with heavy public investment, but lack of an updated public arena. Totally different.

Lots of people don't know what they're talking about either.

Well, I can tell you that I have hosted many from both Houston and Denver (most from the groups enjoy the arts) and virtually none (not all, but most) of them have an appreciation of the Stage Center. They just don't seem to understand Oklahoma City's fascination with this building!

Well, I can tell you that I have hosted many from both Houston and Denver (most from the groups enjoy the arts) and virtually none (not all, but most) of them have an appreciation of the Stage Center. They just don't seem to understand Oklahoma City's fascination with this building!

Yeah, I have to agree with that. I've only ever been by it a few times when I was in town, but it was never anything that wowed me. Of course I'm not a huge arts guy, but I still appreciate good architecture. Yes, the building is unique. It is unique because it is something that has an abstract look that isn't very common. And there's a reason for that. It's pretty dang ugly and serves no functional uses. If you disapprove of this development than that's fine. But no development should be disapproved of solely because it is replacing this building. And using that logic to help weigh down your argument just doesn't do it for me. Just my opinion.

Funny how the same people who like the dilapidated building registry are the same ones who want to prevent the removal of a dilapidated building. It's not like Stage Center could ever be anything other than what it is right now.

The dilapidated building registry frightens the bejesus out of me. It's currently a one-legged stool.

save #47!
Carpenter Square Theatre at Stage Center - Oklahoma City - Reviews of Carpenter Square Theatre at Stage Center - TripAdvisor (http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g51560-d589187-Reviews-Carpenter_Square_Theatre_at_Stage_Center-Oklahoma_City_Oklahoma.html)

This project reminds me of the Sheraton Century Center development. I don't like the city block sized 3 story building base with the poor integration of the towers, appear to be a stuck on afterthought.

I like this buildings integration of building base of retail, parking and tower...


See, something like this would be nice at the Stage Center site. The office space portion is only 13 stories atop a 7 level parking garage, and 1 level or retail, but designing it like this gives it good height of 21 stories. If Rainey Williams would do this type of design, we could be looking at 16 story office space atop a 8 level parking garage, with 2 levels of retail. This would give us nice height of 26 stories. It would also leave more room on the rest of the parcel to develop into green space/plaza for employees, and additional land for another high-rise.

Again, it comes down to how this will be designed...ADG did a bad job on the conceptual site plan, and I think that's what most of us are basing this development off of. Hopefully, if they get a good firm to design this project like Pickard Chilton, Boka Powell, Zimmer Gunsul, or locally Rand Elliot, this project might end up pretty darn good.

This project reminds me of the Sheraton Century Center development.

It is almost exactly like the Century Center; the Sheraton is also 15 stories, it's almost exactly the same size and layout, same amount of parking, pool on top.

Main difference is the green roof and possibility of an additional 8-12 story building.

BTW, this project -- even with another 12-story building -- will likely have way more parking than necessary for it's tenants (also like the CC).


Image below is to scale:

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

Thanks for being a voice of reason, G.Walker.

See, something like this would be nice at the Stage Center site. The office space portion is only 13 stories atop a 7 level parking garage, and 1 level or retail, but designing it like this gives it good height of 21 stories. If Rainey Williams would do this type of design, we could be looking at 16 story office space atop a 8 level parking garage, with 2 levels of retail. This would give us nice height of 26 stories. It would also leave more room on the rest of the parcel to develop into green space/plaza for employees, and additional land for another high-rise.

Again, it comes down to how this will be designed...ADG did a bad job on the conceptual site plan, and I think that's what most of us are basing this development off of. Hopefully, if they get a good firm to design this project like Pickard Chilton, Boka Powell, Zimmer Gunsul, or locally Rand Elliot, this project might end up pretty darn good.

I agree. You can't really judge it until the final renderings are out. I understand everyone's need to speculate, I just hate it when everyone starts jumping to the most negative conclusions.

Williams, after consulting with OG&E, gave specifications to ADG and asked them to do a conceptual plan.

The aesthetics may change but that isn't the issue at all.

Given the parameters and the budget provided, it's very unlikely a new architect is going to completely transform the plans with soaring public spaces, tons more retail or anything else not already shown on the plans. That is not the architect's job; they take the client's requirements and budget and go from there.

It would be fantastic if this ended up being way better than shown but there is nothing that has been reported that would lead you to believe that is likely.

We all HOPE it will be better, but there is also a chance it could be worse; i.e. the second building not being built at all or it only being 8 stories.

What is most likely is that the final plans will be very similar, with slight variation. That is almost always what happens.


Look,no one can blame people for being disappointed.

And I assure you, lots of people read this site and it does have influence, which we have seen in practice many times.

Image below is to scale:

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

Oh, no no no no no no no.

If that's the scale of this project, they need to forget about the Stage Center site. We're now looking at one of the smallest towers in the CBD, when we were promised a world-class development. I don't care if OG&E changed their specifications, this is not in the public interest. They should go one block north and two blocks west. Change the design to something like what architect5311 posted earlier:

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/1401-lawrence-view-2-revised-sky-editsmaller_600.jpg

Put it on Main Street between Lee and Dewey, on the north side of the block that has Dunlap Codding, across from the Main Street Arcade. It would kickstart development in that area, pushing us closer to the new 21c hotel. In that part of downtown it would be a huge success.

5532

Funny how this has come full circle (from 7/30/84):

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

The New OG&E 16-story Headquarters (http://www.okchistory.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=237:the-new-ogae-16-story-headquarters&catid=38:places&Itemid=77)
I remember seeing the drawings for that project in the vault at Benham a long, long time ago.


I don't think it's fair to base development in OKC to development in NYC...just sayin'.
That was a big driver of The Pei Plan, NYC development thinking in a place where suburban development was a fraction of the cost.

I don't think the height of the Sheraton Center is in scale to the new proposal. 15 floors today for an office tower would be much more than a 15 floor hotel from the '70's or '80's.
How tall is the Sheraton - 140 feet ?

I'd think this new tower would be a minimum of 250 feet.

I don't think the height of the Sheraton Center is in scale to the new proposal. 15 floors today for an office tower would be much more than a 15 floor hotel from the '70's or '80's.
How tall is the Sheraton - 140 feet ?

I'd think this new tower would be a minimum of 250 feet.

Agree. Plus the lobby will probably be the height of 2 stories at least (but one floor). This won't be as short as the Sheridan. Pete, you know better than this...

The design and color scheme of century center multiplying, what a nightmare, how can I unsee this image?


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

Yes, the SC tower will be taller -- my illustration was more to show similarity in the projects in terms of layout and scale in terms of the block.

We don't have to guess what it might look like.

http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/scwiki1.jpg

It looks to be 3X as tall as Hotel Black across the street - which from the sidewalk is still a tall building. You sure as heck wouldn't want to fall from the roof.

http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/5486d1387300077-stage-center-tower-sc5.jpg

It is not about building height, or being able to see it from Blanchard. It is about sidewalk interaction and the human scale.

Yes, the SC tower will be taller -- my illustration was more to show similarity in the projects in terms of layout and scale in terms of the block.

Should have noted that. Your photo is misleading.

Should have noted that. Your photo is misleading.

The point is the project concept design. Like the Century Center the OGE complex has a 3 story base building with a mid-rise tower. Both have parking at the core surrounded by com'l/retail. Yes the OGE tower will be taller, but as gwalker pointed out above why not reserve some site for more or future development rather than locking in the design with this massive base element.

Also, why add more green space elevated to the roof level when you have the Myriad Gardens fronting your building. It would seem to pull people away from the already thin crowds at the MBG...

Also, why add more green space elevated to the roof level when you have the Myriad Gardens fronting your building. It would seem to pull people away from the already thin crowds at the MBG...

Yea, if they wanted to do some amenities; things like basketball, tennis or other courts make more sense for the residential part, you could still have a small garden for OG&E employee's breaks

We don't have to guess what it might look like.

It looks to be 3X as tall as Hotel Black across the street

It may be a perspective thing or Hotel Black is not shown at the proper scale.

It's true height is 122 feet and the SC Tower as shown would be somewhere around twice that (15 floors x avg. 16 feet each = 240 feet). And 240 feet is generous... The just-completed One Place Tower in Tulsa is 18 stories and 238 feet.

Wow! What an intolerant attitude. Everyone has a right to their opinion and just because theirs is different from yours shouldn't make it asinine or ridiculous. Maybe there is a reason Stage Center is a "one of a kind" structure. I think SC was a bad fit from the time its design was forced on us and even less so now that it is in such disrepair, but I can respect the opinions that find it iconic.

And we should be absolutely intolerant to such horrible ideas.

I can't believe you're actually defending the idea of a grass lot in the middle of the CBD. Were it not for decorum, I assure you I'd happily be even more vulgar toward such an idea. :)

I hope someone finds a way to scrap this plan before it's too late. Build the thing somewhere else and leave the Stage Center site for the Big Boys.

Personally, I don't think if this thing is built according to the site plan, that it's all that bad.

It's meh. It's average, it's the lowest level of what our expectations should be. Certainly if the street interaction were worse on Hudson and Sheridan, I'd say this is unequivocally a no go, but I do think that this design will bring foot traffic and viability to the area. I wouldn't lose sleep over this being built, and I don't think I'd feel as badly about its existence as I do about the Century Center's existence, especially knowing what the Century Center replaced.

That being said…at $100M this has 0% chance of being world-class. It doesn't even really stand a chance to be something special in the context of this particular region of the United States. At its very best, this will be just one more thing to do in Oklahoma City…something that blends into the overall urban fabric and contributes to urbanism for urbanism's sake.

It's really not such a big deal one way or the other. Maybe that's an indictment or maybe its not…that probably depends on one's previous expectations and what one values most in new development.

I'm just glad no one is freaking out or anything...

Also, why add more green space elevated to the roof level when you have the Myriad Gardens fronting your building. It would seem to pull people away from the already thin crowds at the MBG...

Good point. With more park space coming already thin crowds will get thinner.

Also, why add more green space elevated to the roof level when you have the Myriad Gardens fronting your building. It would seem to pull people away from the already thin crowds at the MBG...

Thin crowds at MBG? You haven't been there in a while, have you? (Edit, Sid beat me to it)

Also, I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of a green roof. Here is a quick read on them and their purpose (http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/green-rooftop.htm) . While it can be a very nice space, I imagine it will be semi-private, open to OG&E employees, events, whoever wants to rent it, and users of whatever comes of the second tower.

Definitely not a draw from MBG, and an improvement from the obnoxious "corporate plazas" that are all over downtown.

Downtown OKC is pretty packed even on weeknights and that includes the Myriad Gardens. I was at the Devon Ice Rink last week one night and it was shoulder to shoulder. I wouldn't worry about the green rooftop competing with the Myriad Gardens.

The one day downtown could really use more activity is Sunday. Other than that, it's pretty active all around.

Maybe someone can clear this up for me, because I'll admit I'm not exactly sure how bids for these kinds of developments work. That said, I've seen several people say that OG&E should move this tower and target a different site and leave this one open for bigger developments. But, if OG&E won the bidding process for this site does it not mean they were offering the biggest proposal $ wise?

Maybe someone can clear this up for me, because I'll admit I'm not exactly sure how bids for these kinds of developments work. That said, I've seen several people say that OG&E should move this tower and target a different site and leave this one open for bigger developments. But, if OG&E won the bidding process for this site does it not mean they were offering the biggest proposal $ wise?

First of all, it was Rainey Williams that bought the property, not OG&E.

And secondly, the foundation that owns Stage Center said their selection of purchaser was based on a lot of factors, not necessarily the highest bid.

Rainey Williams owns the site. That's done. He can now do with the site, for the most part, as he wishes. If he wanted, he could probably tear down stage center, and then build a replica of stage center that wouldn't leak. Would probably be cheaper than actually fixing stage center. That said, he's building $100M tower (and then some). OG&E has probably signed some good faith agreement to be his primary tenant. There's no bidding process at this point, short of OG&E scrapping their plans and Rainey finding a different tenant, but there's still no bidding involved in that case.

First of all, it was Rainey Williams that bought the property, not OG&E.

And secondly, the foundation that owns Stage Center said their selection of purchaser was based on a lot of factors, not necessarily the highest bid.

I am sure that is the case. At the time Rainey Williams won the bid, it wouldn't surprise me if he was promising a much bigger development than we are currently seeing. It's doubtful he would have used "world class" to describe this. He also wouldn't have said "at least 20 floors" if the original plan was a 14-story tower. There also has to be a reason that the intention to build a tower was originally announced last summer but we are just now, six months later, seeing a rendering after numerous delays. It only makes sense that there were some big changes to the proposal between July and today.

This isn't the exact same thing, but Randy Hogan won the bid for Lower Bricktown based on very different plans compared to what actually was built.

First of all, it was Rainey Williams that bought the property, not OG&E.

And secondly, the foundation that owns Stage Center said their selection of purchaser was based on a lot of factors, not necessarily the highest bid.

Yeah, I understand that Williams owns the site. But I've seen several people talk as if he was bidding on behalf of OG&E, as a major anchor, all along.

I was just thinking that if there was really any BIG developers/developments interested in the site, then you would think they would have been able to outbid someone who was only planning something along the lines of a $100 million development.

And we should be absolutely intolerant to such horrible ideas.

I can't believe you're actually defending the idea of a grass lot in the middle of the CBD. Were it not for decorum, I assure you I'd happily be even more vulgar toward such an idea. :)

It wasn't me defending the grass lot. If you check the Stage Center, I advocated any better use. I don't think a grass lot is better use but I may have suggested that a two-story McDonald's would be. :p

no