In other words, abuse the process to deny a demolition permit so hopefully the tall and shiny crowd can abuse the process a different way later down the road.

The irony in this thread is nearing overwhelming proportions.

No, you just seem to not understand what 90% of the people on this thread do understand. Its about quality. What Rainey proposed/budgeted is not worthy of demolishing the only internationally recognized building in OKC, on some of the most prime real estate, for a parking garage and no new jobs.

Question though, can a refurbishing also be a relocation? I like the idea of salvaging all usable parts and rebuilding stage center in the new park. It could certainly be used there.

In other words, abuse the process to deny a demolition permit so hopefully the tall and shiny crowd can abuse the process a different way later down the road.

The irony in this thread is nearing overwhelming proportions.


That's not any different from the back room handshake buddy system that was used to get the bid the property in the first place,is it?

In other words, abuse the process to deny a demolition permit so hopefully the tall and shiny crowd can abuse the process a different way later down the road.

The irony in this thread is nearing overwhelming proportions.

Kevin, I don't understand what you're getting at. What process is being abused? The planning staff wrote a report that objects to the demolition of an iconic structure. That's not an abuse of process no matter what means to an end it may be.

The end goal is to prevent an iconic piece of architecture being demolished for a development with MAJOR concerns. Rainey Williams clearly doesn't have the financing or resources he pledged that he did. He now has to demo the Stage Center (step 1), plan the whole development around the premise of parking revenue streams (step 2), and then sell off other buildings in NW OKC and subdivide a plot along Sheridan (step 3), just to finance a small office building that already has a master lease for downtown's most stable office tenant with ZERO competitors.

This is fast becoming bad news. I was championing this dude's development plan last week, up until the latest revelation, and I think the latest revelation should flip a lot more posters than just myself. Don't forget that. I was initially a big fan of what RW was proposing, so don't attack me for being unreasonable. I'm practically the only poster on this forum that ever evaluates things case by case, AND I would still support this development if it looked like Rainey was a developer who knew what he was doing.

Just for perspective, not only is Rainey having some evident difficulties pulling this development, but his only prior downtown development experience involved placing a new corporate plaza in front of the BOK Tower. This guy is not a veteran developer, as evidenced by the worst case of "over promise, under deliver" I have ever seen. "Under deliver" usually comes at the end of construction, not every month, when a little more information gets out.

My negative reaction this time is due to my discomfort of tearing down Stage Center when we have no idea or assurances in any way how this is going to end up. I still don't want to see an imposing, sterile corporate tower here, which I'm sure many still do want to see. I just want to see a real development here, not a suburban tower, parking garage, and a pad site for sale by owner.

Kevin, I don't understand what you're getting at. What process is being abused? The planning staff wrote a report that objects to the demolition of an iconic structure. That's not an abuse of process no matter what means to an end it may be.

The end goal is to prevent an iconic piece of architecture being demolished for a development with MAJOR concerns. Rainey Williams clearly doesn't have the financing or resources he pledged that he did. He now has to demo the Stage Center (step 1), plan the whole development around the premise of parking revenue streams (step 2), and then sell off other buildings in NW OKC and subdivide a plot along Sheridan (step 3), just to finance a small office building that already has a master lease for downtown's most stable office tenant with ZERO competitors.

This is fast becoming bad news. I was championing this dude's development plan last week, up until the latest revelation, and I think the latest revelation should flip a lot more posters than just myself. Don't forget that. I was initially a big fan of what RW was proposing, so don't attack me for being unreasonable. I'm practically the only poster on this forum that ever evaluates things case by case, AND I would still support this development if it looked like Rainey was a developer who knew what he was doing.

Just for perspective, not only is Rainey having some evident difficulties pulling this development, but his only prior downtown development experience involved placing a new corporate plaza in front of the BOK Tower. This guy is not a veteran developer, as evidenced by the worst case of "over promise, under deliver" I have ever seen. "Under deliver" usually comes at the end of construction, not every month, when a little more information gets out.

My negative reaction this time is due to my discomfort of tearing down Stage Center when we have no idea or assurances in any way how this is going to end up. I still don't want to see an imposing, sterile corporate tower here, which I'm sure many still do want to see. I just want to see a real development here, not a suburban tower, parking garage, and a pad site for sale by owner.

Completely agree, Spartan.

This is from the July 26th chat transcript:

"Steve Lackmeyer 10:07 a.m. Thanks Gary. No, it's not safe to assume the tower anchor will be associated with OG&E, Enogex or Centerpoint. It's possible. But as I've said before, there are a lot of missing pieces. Consider what I've told you before; in March a completely different developer was on the verge of getting this contract for the Stage Center property. It was not a reflection on that developer that the deal fell through. He had other tenants lined up, and it is still quite possible he may build a tower elsewhere downtown. In the meantime, let my article sink in - this tower is being built by Rainey Williams, not OG&E, not Enogex, not Centerpoint. Could any mix of these three end up as tenants? Maybe. But don't make any assumptions. As for those who question whether Rainey Williams is just a front, and question his capacity for doing this development, well, you don't know Rainey Williams."

It seems to be that Rainey Williams doesn't have the capacity for doing this development and the result is, as you said Spartan, the worst case of over-promise, under-deliver I have ever seen, and this is still in the early stages. He is obviously not the esteemed, experienced developer he was made out to be. Usually down-scaling comes about in later stages of construction or in later phases of multi-site developments such as Lower Bricktown, NOT just before getting a demolition permit for the site in which you plan to build, and especially not when that site has an international landmark that many citizens of your city are emotionally attached to. This entire thing smells real bad.

Thanks for getting the quote, especially since I think I've been paraphrasing it badly on the last few pages. But my point with that was that Steve nailed it, I don't know Rainey Williams and nobody else does, either.

These are all omens.

Lease negotiations won't even begin seriously until (and unless) someone gets control of the property so that it can actually be developed.

Lately it seems as though all of the Rainey support has come in form of belittling write offs of legitimate concerns, or of just pure biased hatred towards the Stage Center.

I'm practically the only poster on this forum that ever evaluates things case by case

Note to self: Start evaluating things case by case.

Can't believe the vast majority of the board had never thought of this.

Everyone needs to back off the bashing of rainey williams until we actually know what is going on. Everyone is just assuming right now and will look like idiots if it turns out into a good development.

Everyone needs to back off the bashing of rainey williams until we actually know what is going on. Everyone is just assuming right now and will look like idiots if it turns out into a good development.

Nice try, Rainey.

We know what is going on. What is going on is he took a giant dump and presented it as his plan. Saying we need to wait and see what happens is like saying "just close your eyes and reach under her skirt, I know she's got an Adam's Apple and big hairy hands but maybe everything down there is in the right place". No way. Fool me three times, shame on you. Fool me four, shame on me.

Kevin, I don't understand what you're getting at. What process is being abused? The planning staff wrote a report that objects to the demolition of an iconic structure. That's not an abuse of process no matter what means to an end it may be.

The end goal is to prevent an iconic piece of architecture being demolished for a development with MAJOR concerns. ...

The denial rec was based specifically on the provisions the existing structure should be preserved and protected based on historical improtance. What might come after is not a consideration in the denial rec. It is based on what is there.

Contrary to what some are turning that into, there is no process for the denial to be shield to a development someone does not like, or to compel a better, bigger, whatever development.
Read your final sentence again. You sum up how most are fine with denial, but ignore the why of the denial and that potential impact.

Either the structure needs to be protected from demo based on its historic importance, or it does not. If not, then whether what comes after is the current proposal, or a surface lot, or a p-garage, the demo should not be denied. If folks want tall and shiny as a minimum standard in the CBD, they need to have that written in by their elected leadership,and those their leadership hire.
Otherwise, any currently confirming use may be unpopular, but that is not the same as being improper.

Where there is a will, there is a way. These things are decided in singular instances by votes and turnout, not by recommendations.

Focus a little less on what's better for Rainey, and a little more on what is best for OKC. We still have a chance to avoid a failed development fiasco like "The Pit" in Parks and Rec or this one on today's front page:
Oklahoma lawsuit claims Texoma developer has 'completely failed' | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-lawsuit-claims-texoma-developer-has-completely-failed/article/3922850)

Where there is a will, there is a way. These things are decided in singular instances by votes and turnout, not by recommendations.

Focus a little less on what's better for Rainey, and a little more on what is best for OKC. We still have a chance to avoid a failed development fiasco like "The Pit" in Parks and Rec or this one on today's front page:
Oklahoma lawsuit claims Texoma developer has 'completely failed' | News OK (http://newsok.com/oklahoma-lawsuit-claims-texoma-developer-has-completely-failed/article/3922850)

This was / is a real scandal, IMO.

Video I took walking around on this beautiful day, for those wanting some SC pr0n:


http://youtu.be/4Rh9Xf74yoA

I could post a video I did like 2-3 years ago and it's pretty much unchanged. Plus or minus some graffiti and litter.

Just curious. If Rainey's demo request is denied and he is forced to sell to someone else who then does get a demo permit, does it open the door to a lawsuit? If a decision to deny demo is made, how then can it be overturned later? SC is either significant enough to be preserved, or it isn't. That decision shouldn't be based on what follows. Seems to me it should be a once and for all decision.

The denial rec was based specifically on the provisions the existing structure should be preserved and protected based on historical improtance. What might come after is not a consideration in the denial rec. It is based on what is there.

Contrary to what some are turning that into, there is no process for the denial to be shield to a development someone does not like, or to compel a better, bigger, whatever development.
Read your final sentence again. You sum up how most are fine with denial, but ignore the why of the denial and that potential impact.

Either the structure needs to be protected from demo based on its historic importance, or it does not. If not, then whether what comes after is the current proposal, or a surface lot, or a p-garage, the demo should not be denied. If folks want tall and shiny as a minimum standard in the CBD, they need to have that written in by their elected leadership,and those their leadership hire.
Otherwise, any currently confirming use may be unpopular, but that is not the same as being improper.

kevinpate, you and I seem to be on the exact same page. You are a refreshing voice of reason that seems to get what is actually happening. I wish that folks would do some research on how this works as it is written in the regulations. It's all spelled out above. The demolition application must be decided without respect to what is proposed to take it's place.

Without any intention to put words in anyone's mouth, Rainey Williams bought this property from the private owners, without any legal right to public oversight of the transaction. He bought it under no restrictions beyond the current regulations on the books. I'm all for a much better Oklahoma City, but the shrill cry from the shiny and tall, and the preservationists, each calling for someone else to spend private funds to meet their expectations is stomach churning.

From the moment I arrived here in OKC in 2004 I've been intrigued with Stage Center, but it is no longer functional and apparently will cost tens of millions to rehabilitate with no defined financially viable purpose. What is proposed will most certainly meet the minimums set by current regulations. What it will replace is likely to found in conflict with the recently passed "Blighted Properties" regulations.

If you find this unacceptable, then you should get in contact with your local representatives to establish new standards for development for these "super valuable" properties enhanced by public investment, but you can't go backwards in time and set new standards on the basis Of disappointment with a few conceptual renderings and limited statements, or anything else, for that matter.

Kevin, you are likely far more eloquent and concise than I.

Just curious. If Rainey's demo request is denied and he is forced to sell to someone else who then does get a demo permit, does it open the door to a lawsuit? If a decision to deny demo is made, how then can it be overturned later? SC is either significant enough to be preserved, or it isn't. That decision shouldn't be based on what follows. Seems to me it should be a once and for all decision.

Don't take this too seriously because I'll probably never get the chance to take a look at the issues it has, but the most exculpable distinction would be that it isn't too far gone yet, but in the future may be.

I don't see why we can't tell him demolition will not be approved until he has financing in place and is ready to break ground. What proof do we have that this development will even take place, much less be approved? If they're not going to start until 2015, wait until then to demo it. Why destroy a structure people love prematurely? It's a lot easier to get the DDRC to accept a mediocre plan for a vacant lot. Is that why?

Don't take this too seriously because I'll probably never get the chance to take a look at the issues it has, but the most exculpable distinction would be that it isn't too far gone yet, but in the future may be.

With respect Spartan, I don't take it too seriously. More as wishful thinking. I've not read the damage report, but as I understand matters, back around the time the structure was deemed too far gone to rehabilitate, there was an extensive report put together to lay out why this was so. It's my understanding that the present owner relied on that same report as part of the demo application.
The simply fact a once iconic structure was left idle for years, while also spending 100 grand or so a year to keep it secured from urban campers and vandals, suggests there are significant problems.

To deny an otherwise appropriate demo app based on the building should be preserved in no way supports it would be appropriate to let it fall further into disrepair. If the govt. intends to protect the structure, it may be assuming a responsibility to step up and do so since it is in effect restricting the private property rights of the owner at that point. Frankly, I wouldn't displeased if it were to be put in the let's do it mode ala the Skirvin. I simply do not see it happening for this structure. If it is not truly going to be protected, then it has been left to decay for three years already, over actually, and it is time to move on. Protect or raze. Protect to raze another day is not a valid option for denying the permit this go around.

Because it's not in the evaluation criteria set forth in the regulation. Please, quit trying to impose unwritten requirements upon a developer. If we want higher standards we have to adopt them in accordance with the written procedures. I do think we need these standards adopted, or OCURA needs to be selectively involved, but only if the current landowner is very fairly compensated. However, until recently, OCURA has a pretty shabby track record, so I'm not staking the future on that.

I don't see why we can't tell him demolition will not be approved until he has financing in place and is ready to break ground. What proof do we have that this development will even take place, much less be approved? If they're not going to start until 2015, wait until then to demo it. Why destroy a structure people love prematurely? It's a lot easier to get the DDRC to accept a mediocre plan for a vacant lot. Is that why?
In order to get financing the developer has to have leases. In order to have leases the developer has to have a project that can be built. In order to have a project that can be built the developer has to have the land and the zoning.

The developer probably has some sort of letter of intent right now and enough confidence that the existing structure can be demolished.

If permission to demolish is denied then that's a pretty good sign to other developers that the property is not yet suitable for development.

With respect Spartan, I don't take it too seriously. More as wishful thinking. I've not read the damage report, but as I understand matters, back around the time the structure was deemed too far gone to rehabilitate, there was an extensive report put together to lay out why this was so. It's my understanding that the present owner relied on that same report as part of the demo application.
The simply fact a once iconic structure was left idle for years, while also spending 100 grand or so a year to keep it secured from urban campers and vandals, suggests there are significant problems.

To deny an otherwise appropriate demo app based on the building should be preserved in no way supports it would be appropriate to let it fall further into disrepair. If the govt. intends to protect the structure, it may be assuming a responsibility to step up and do so since it is in effect restricting the private property rights of the owner at that point. Frankly, I wouldn't displeased if it were to be put in the let's do it mode ala the Skirvin. I simply do not see it happening for this structure. If it is not truly going to be protected, then it has been left to decay for three years already, over actually, and it is time to move on. Protect or raze. Protect to raze another day is not a valid option for denying the permit this go around.

It's not wishful thinking. I just don't put a lot of trust in a report that was mailed in.

With all due respect as well, you're freaking out over a building decaying for three years. Experienced preservationists would scoff at that.

The denial rec was based specifically on the provisions the existing structure should be preserved and protected based on historical improtance. What might come after is not a consideration in the denial rec. It is based on what is there.

Contrary to what some are turning that into, there is no process for the denial to be shield to a development someone does not like, or to compel a better, bigger, whatever development.
Read your final sentence again. You sum up how most are fine with denial, but ignore the why of the denial and that potential impact.

Either the structure needs to be protected from demo based on its historic importance, or it does not. If not, then whether what comes after is the current proposal, or a surface lot, or a p-garage, the demo should not be denied. If folks want tall and shiny as a minimum standard in the CBD, they need to have that written in by their elected leadership,and those their leadership hire.
Otherwise, any currently confirming use may be unpopular, but that is not the same as being improper.

I agree with Kevin on this and there is one more side to Kevin's argument that has not really been touched on, but one that I believe Kevin was intending to make...IF, the demo is denied based on preservation...THEN someone comes along with a "better" project and SC gets approved for demo...the Arts groups may now have possible LEGAL GROUNDS to bring suite based on ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT. If that were to happen the SC could be left as is with no one willing to take on the millions for rehab, then what do we do?

Really? The method of delivery, most likely because it was completed a bit early is your basis for dispute? Complete idiocy!

I agree with Kevin on this and there is one more side to Kevin's argument that has not really been touched on, but one that I believe Kevin was intending to make...IF, the demo is denied based on preservation...THEN someone comes along with a "better" project and SC gets approved for demo...the Arts groups may now have possible LEGAL GROUNDS to bring suite based on ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT. If that were to happen the SC could be left as is with no one willing to take on the millions for rehab, then what do we do?

If this is analyzed from every issue and there is no legal way fr a public board to salvage this block from development purgatory, then a moratorium should be pursued to get some better ordinances.

Like I said where there's a will there's a way. Zoning was uphold by SCOTUS almost a hundred years ago. City of Euclid v. Ambler. That's a settled issue. Public boards can review development projects.

The key here is that there is no reason any agents if Rainey Williams should be holding the public hostage w legal threats. That won't fly. We have as many rights as he does because citizens are equals.

If this is analyzed from every issue and there is no legal way fr a public board to salvage this block from development purgatory, then a moratorium should be pursued to get some better ordinances.

Like I said where there's a will there's a way. Zoning was uphold by SCOTUS almost a hundred years ago. City of Euclid v. Ambler. That's a settled issue. Public boards can review development projects.

Zoning that was in place before the development was proposed, not after the fact.

Zoning that was in place before the development was proposed, not after the fact.

That's when cities invoke moratoriums. The City of Akron did one recently, in fact.

I get that, but it's not fair, and it's subject to the interpretation of the courts. They most often find for the developer, with a few concessions.

Frankly, I wouldn't displeased if it were to be put in the let's do it mode ala the Skirvin.

If you want to use the Skirvin as an example you would have to include that the Skirvin wouldn't be able to rent any rooms out after the rehab. Even if the Stage Center was rebuilt to its former glory there is still the problem that no arts organization in the City wants to use it. Once again, it would be all dressed up with nowhere to go, but now instead of costing $100K to secure it, it would cost way more.

If you want to use the Skirvin as an example you would have to include that the Skirvin wouldn't be able to rent any rooms out after the rehab

Huh? I don't get this statement, as they very surely do.

I have come around on Stage Center. I think it is worth saving unless something comes along that absolutely knocks our socks off. It's architecturally significant and while we haven't really put any emphasis on it, that doesn't mean we couldn't. If we preserve it, and build the city up around it, it could be a very cool place in the future. Nobody has a building like this. Yes, it's expensive to keep up and it is never going to turn a profit, but so are the Myriad Gardens. I think Stage Center is worthy of inclusion in MAPS 4. The city can take possession of it and turn it into a museum. Let's build around it and for once, keep a controversial piece of art in Oklahoma City.

Rainey Williams' initial statements led me to believe that we were going to see a very significant skyline addition, with great public interaction, that the city could be proud of. Based on that I was conflicted, but eventually okay with the loss of Stage Center. But now we see his design, and quite frankly, it sucks horse balls. That's it. This design is an utter piece of crap. There are a lot of people who for whatever reason feel compelled to stand up for the rights of Rainey Williams, "oh won't someone think of the poor millionaires". That poor millionaire made a backroom deal to acquire a historic property and now we find out he did so with false promises. They wouldn't have sold him the property if they knew what he was really planning to build.

The public has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into cleaning up this part of the city and making it one of the prime locations in the state. Rainey Williams, as with all developers downtown who are benefitting immensely from this public investment, has a duty to the city to not build to the minimum standards.

Where we really need to focus our energy is on OG&E. Political pressure can be exerted on them to select another location. That's far more likely to get a good result than to fight RW over a demolition permit.

Where we really need to focus our energy is on OG&E. Political pressure can be exerted on them to select another location. That's far more likely to get a good result than to fight RW over a demolition permit.

Bingo. OG&E doesn't want bad publicity over all this. Where there's a will there's a way, but is there a will?

If you want to use the Skirvin as an example you would have to include that the Skirvin wouldn't be able to rent any rooms out after the rehab.Huh? I don't get this statement, as they very surely do.

Skirvin: rehabbed + renting rooms = success

Stage Center: rehabbed + no one wanting to use it = ???

All of the art organizations in the city have already been asked and all of them said they didn't want to use it for themselves, so even if they fixed it up - who would us it? It would be like fixing up the Skirvin and then not renting rooms in it.

Don't take this too seriously because I'll probably never get the chance to take a look at the issues it has, but the most exculpable distinction would be that it isn't too far gone yet, but in the future may be.

So, a developer would have to wait until it was totally a hazard? Something that might take years. Until then the only option would be rehabbing. Seems like that is what is happening just north of tHem. Maybe Preftakes buys it and adds it to his portfolio there. So much for the most valuable spot in town.

i understand the sentiment of some who want to keep stage center from being demolished. but then what? who's stepping up to do something with it? to my knowledge all i've seen and heard is people who are vocal about not wanting it demolished, but no one with money and a plan to occupy it. am i missing something?

i understand the sentiment of some who want to keep stage center from being demolished. but then what? ... am i missing something?

A small number (at least here) would like to see it saved and rehabbed. Many here want the demo permit denied, but their actual interest in saving it is near nil. Stopping demo at this time is merely a means to another end. It is hoped a denial now would somehow require the property owner to come up with a bigger, grander development scheme that would make folks all ohhh, ahhhh, special as it meets their requirements of tall, shiny, [insert pet fav here], etc. If such a development were to be proposed, then the SC would suddenly be as it already is, beyond saving by anyone with the means and desire to save it.

I used to be in the by gum it oughta be saved and reopened camp. I lack the resources. I lack the drive to recruit the resources. Someone else owns it and unlike the foundation that used to own it, the new owner doesn't want to plow 100g or so a year into letting it simply sit. Is his development the shiniest, tallest, ohhh, ahhh, specialiest one in the world? Nope. then again, nada in the codes applicable to the property require that.

Bottom line Some folks are very free with other folks time and money and want to impose personal standards that the city doesn't require. I don't know the current owner. Can't recall ever even knowing the name before the purchase a while back. But if he isn't doing anything illegal, and he meets code, given the disrepair of the existing structure, it isn't a high bar to call most anything a better use of the property than a decaying structure (one which could possibly be recreated from scratch for less than the existing one could be reborn.)

[QUOTE=Spartan;731175]Kevin, I don't understand what you're getting at. What process is being abused?

The process of getting a permit to demolish a structure. The folks who get to have input on what goes on the cleared land is a different group and a different process. We've got some people trying to leverage their distaste for a structure some people have a peculiar predisposition to retaining into a bureaucratic maneuver. To me, that's abusing the process.

A small number (at least here) would like to see it saved and rehabbed. Many here want the demo permit denied, but their actual interest in saving it is near nil. Stopping demo at this time is merely a means to another end. It is hoped a denial now would somehow require the property owner to come up with a bigger, grander development scheme that would make folks all ohhh, ahhhh, special as it meets their requirements of tall, shiny, [insert pet fav here], etc. If such a development were to be proposed, then the SC would suddenly be as it already is, beyond saving by anyone with the means and desire to save it.

I used to be in the by gum it oughta be saved and reopened camp. I lack the resources. I lack the drive to recruit the resources. Someone else owns it and unlike the foundation that used to own it, the new owner doesn't want to plow 100g or so a year into letting it simply sit. Is his development the shiniest, tallest, ohhh, ahhh, specialiest one in the world? Nope. then again, nada in the codes applicable to the property require that.

Bottom line Some folks are very free with other folks time and money and want to impose personal standards that the city doesn't require. I don't know the current owner. Can't recall ever even knowing the name before the purchase a while back. But if he isn't doing anything illegal, and he meets code, given the disrepair of the existing structure, it isn't a high bar to call most anything a better use of the property than a decaying structure (one which could possibly be recreated from scratch for less than the existing one could be reborn.)

Marvelously stated, Kevin. I'd give you a "like" if we could on this thread.

Kevin, You make great points. But just to be clear, I support saving the Stage Center and re-purposing - period. Apart and aside from any other towers occupying the space. If we have money to give to corporations as "incentives" then there's money to offer non-profits to do something incredible with a renowned piece of art and architecture. The money could return in droves if it were a downtown museum and tourist dollars rolled in.

As I've said before, it's not a matter of "IF" we could do it - it's a matter of will and desire to preserve this structure. It CAN be saved. If we can turn dusty old, run down warehouses into what is now Bricktown (and I could give many other examples), we could make this structure world class. It's a matter of will and determination, not IF it could be done - we KNOW it can be done. And I believe it could be done and be a boost to Oklahoma City tourism - while preserving Johansen's masterpiece with a new lease on life and purpose.

Kevin, You make great points. But just to be clear, I support saving the Stage Center and re-purposing - period. Apart and aside from any other towers occupying the space. If we have money to give to corporations as "incentives" then there's money to offer non-profits to do something incredible with a renowned piece of art and architecture. The money could return in droves if it were a downtown museum and tourist dollars rolled in.

As I've said before, it's not a matter of "IF" we could do it - it's a matter of will and desire to preserve this structure. It CAN be saved. If we can turn dusty old, run down warehouses into what is now Bricktown (and I could give many other examples), we could make this structure world class. It's a matter of will and determination, not IF it could be done - we KNOW it can be done. And I believe it could be done and be a boost to Oklahoma City tourism - while preserving Johansen's masterpiece with a new lease on life and purpose.

Sure it can be saved. Anything (just about) can be saved. But who is going to pay for it? I think the RW proposal should be denied so that efforts can be made to save the Stage center. RW will hopefully sell the property the and then when no one steps up to take on the renovation then it can be demolished. Then Continental or some other Corp. can build a real World Class Skyscraper

[QUOTE=Spartan;731175]Kevin, I don't understand what you're getting at. What process is being abused?

The process of getting a permit to demolish a structure. The folks who get to have input on what goes on the cleared land is a different group and a different process. We've got some people trying to leverage their distaste for a structure some people have a peculiar predisposition to retaining into a bureaucratic maneuver. To me, that's abusing the process.

You're just saying that because you know their hands are tied even worse. To me, that's a using the process.

Kevin, You make great points. But just to be clear, I support saving the Stage Center and re-purposing - period. Apart and aside from any other towers occupying the space. If we have money to give to corporations as "incentives" then there's money to offer non-profits to do something incredible with a renowned piece of art and architecture. The money could return in droves if it were a downtown museum and tourist dollars rolled in.

As I've said before, it's not a matter of "IF" we could do it - it's a matter of will and desire to preserve this structure. It CAN be saved. If we can turn dusty old, run down warehouses into what is now Bricktown (and I could give many other examples), we could make this structure world class. It's a matter of will and determination, not IF it could be done - we KNOW it can be done. And I believe it could be done and be a boost to Oklahoma City tourism - while preserving Johansen's masterpiece with a new lease on life and purpose.

Not trying to be argumentative, but....

I challenge the idea that the structure itself can ever be anything but a cash negative and economically only valuable as a placeholder while the area around it becomes more and more valuable. We have had years and years to figure out a use that results in it paying for itself. And the longer it takes to make that determination the higher the cost of reconstruction goes. It seems to be getting farther and farther from that target, rather than closer.

Secondly, what in the world makes anyone think this will create tourism? It hasn't in the past and there is no evidence to support expectations that it will in the future. The database of those interested or curious enough to travel to OKC from afar, let alone from nearby, just to see this structure is really, really limited. This may be a local curiosity and a national/international relic of a specific architect or style, but it is far from a tourist attraction. Other than architectural historians, or fans of the architect, practically no one even knows this exists, and fewer would know it exists in OKC.

Kevin, You make great points. But just to be clear, I support saving the Stage Center and re-purposing - period. Apart and aside from any other towers occupying the space. If we have money to give to corporations as "incentives" then there's money to offer non-profits to do something incredible with a renowned piece of art and architecture. The money could return in droves if it were a downtown museum and tourist dollars rolled in.

As I've said before, it's not a matter of "IF" we could do it - it's a matter of will and desire to preserve this structure. It CAN be saved. If we can turn dusty old, run down warehouses into what is now Bricktown (and I could give many other examples), we could make this structure world class. It's a matter of will and determination, not IF it could be done - we KNOW it can be done. And I believe it could be done and be a boost to Oklahoma City tourism - while preserving Johansen's masterpiece with a new lease on life and purpose.

With all due respect, zoo, the prior owners would beg to differ. There's a huge difference between practical capability and let's dream about it potential. The prior owners were about as forthright as they could be in soliciting proposals for various purposes, because they had no use for the building, the prior tenants had their effects ruined from the water damage the building sustained, and there were no resources to fix its unending problems. There were no takers, no backers, no practical support. Comparing the rehab of an old bricktown warehouse into something useful at retail to what's needed to make the SC useful for nearly any purpose again is an apples-to-atom-bombs comparison.

The point is, the silence created by the absence of backers for alternative uses was deafening. All the potential deep pockets know the reality - the building is beyond salvageable. The time for the SC has passed.

The $20 million figure is fairly dubious.

Stage Center is an eyesore and a money pit. It must go. The city gave all comers a year to come up with proposals that could save it or repurpose it. One proposal came in and it was not self sufficient. The proposal would have had the city paying to subsidize the proposal each and every year. The city then put it up for sale. They did what they could and no one came up with a true viable option for the site so it was put up for sale.

There is no reason for the demo permit to be denied or for anyone on here to be whining about still trying to save or repurpose Stage Center. It is dead and as such, should be demolished so the person who now owns it can get on with developing it.

The $20 million figure is fairly dubious.Yeah. I heard closer to 30 or 40 million.

The $20 million figure is fairly dubious.

What do your sources indicate the true amount is?

There's so much misinformation on this thread that it's just too frustrating to participate in.

You're just saying that because you know their hands are tied even worse. To me, that's a using the process.

Uhmmm, no, I'm saying that because....that's the way it is. Trying to superimpose a design review into the permit process is a de-facto abuse of the process. If there's something hamstringing that latter process, fix that process.

The other thing I'm going to say that's going to make some folks angry, and I'll apologize for it in advance, is that is no longer an issue except to a decreasing number of passionate, well-meaning, well-intentioned people. Its time to stop dragging this issue out. Trying to wedge life into the SC by virtue of the demo permit process isn't really helping anyone.

zookeeper, you are actually one of the folks I had specifically in mind when I noted a small number here truly want SC saved and rehabbed. And as noted, I once felt the same way. Mainly due to some really good memories from productions attended, and well, yeah, it's definitely a different bit of funky from most structures. I wish at times I hadn't lost my zeal for it, but it happened, and I've hit that settle for the memories stage. I know it bothers the tall and shiny devotees, but rather than it sit rotting, I really would be ok with a surface lot generating funds for a better project, or even short term to help the current owner fund his project is that help is beneficial.

We now return everyone to the birthing of kittens and burning of certain out of towners like me in effigy.

There's so much misinformation on this thread that it's just too frustrating to participate in.agreed. It's ridiculous and no one knows what is going to look like and are bashing it. EVEN IM DOING THAT! So I'm just trying to stay out of it until I see official renderings so I don't look like a fool.

I also think conceptual rendering are always a bit more ambitious than the final product and this concept kind of sucks, so the final design will likely be scaled down from this, so it is kind of understandable why people are Janet on this.

agreed. It's ridiculous and no one knows what is going to look like and are bashing it. EVEN IM DOING THAT! So I'm just trying to stay out of it until I see official renderings so I don't look like a fool.

I also think conceptual rendering are always a bit more ambitious than the final product and this concept kind of sucks, so the final design will likely be scaled down from this, so it is kind of understandable why people are Janet on this.

I think you're reading zookeeper wrong gee. He wants us, the taxpayer, to find the revamping of the Stage Center so the 1k people in the metro that care if it's still there will be happy. Not trying to make this political, but it sure does look like the minority in this issue are trying to get what they want over the masses. Seems very familiar to our PC political world we live in today.

Demo that piece of a building that's rotting so my tax payer money doesn't have to go to the funding of trying to keep hobos out of it. I have memories there, too. Doesn't change the fact that the building will never make a profit for the city and it's been useless for a long time now.

There's so much misinformation on this thread that it's just too frustrating to participate in.

Since you apparently know the real information, please share? What costs have you seen? What uses indicate at least a break-even? What tourist traffic will those uses create and where from? And the sources of your information?

I've been to several business conventions. All of them had small, medium and large places for seminars.

Back on topic: the thing most disconcerting to me is the apparent misleading sales job by the developer. Whether or not you favor saving the Stage Center, it should concern you that someone could destroy an internationally significant piece of architecture by over promising what he/she intends to do with the property. I think his demolition permit should be put on hold until the public has a full understand of what he intends to do with this property. If he already has another investor lined up to build the second tower, he needs to let the public know about it. I'm very concerned with the document Pete posted and the ramifications of it.

Lease negotiations won't even begin seriously until (and unless) someone gets control of the property so that it can actually be developed.

…

Kestrel Investments owns and controls the property

Everyone needs to back off the bashing of rainey williams until we actually know what is going on. Everyone is just assuming right now and will look like idiots if it turns out into a good development.

I'm sorry, but there is no good development for this block that comes in under $200,000,000+. You can only squeeze so much out of $100,000,000 and I'm not convinced that even the very best use of $100M is enough for this particular lot of Oklahoma City. Plus we already know that "very best use" of $100M is not going to occur when a substantial portion of that is going to a parking garage.

I think you'll find that by statute, the futiure use cannot be the basis for denial of a demo permit.

…

Kestrel Investments owns and controls the property
But Kestrel is unable to build anything on the property until the existing buildings are demolished which is obviously uncertain. The legal fees for lease negotiation for this project will be in the hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of dollars. Neither party will want to begin burning cash for the lease until the site is cleared.

Now once the way is cleared for the site to be developed then a lot of cash will be burned very rapidly including lease negotiations, engineering, appraisals, architectural and other costs.

Just the way it is done - no big mystery.