View Full Version : OG&E Tower
catcherinthewry 01-12-2014, 04:09 PM 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.
If by "we" you mean the business people that developed Bricktown, then I agree. Here's the problem with your statement, though: The developers of Bricktown saw a way to make a profit and took the risk of developing. No one has been able to find a way to make a profit by making SC "world class", thus there is no incentive to take the risk to do so.
zookeeper 01-12-2014, 04:57 PM Just a couple of minutes, please?
First, thank you, Kevin, for recognizing that there truly are "true believers" for the possibilities for Stage Center that are complete and separate from any discussion about what would be replacing it. I appreciate that.
There seems to be little interest in anything that is public space for the public. There's all kinds of giveaways....I'm sorry, incentives....for office towers, basketball, even for companies that are hugely profitable and prosperous and don't need any assistance from the taxpayers. Don't think I disagree with all of that, I love the Thunder and what it has done for our city. My point is the lack of vision beyond a 50+ skyscraper for this property. I fail to understand why people can't use their imaginations with this structure and see the possibilities. I'm asked where the profit is going to come from, why tourists would visit OKC for something like a children's museum. (I never said they would come simply for the museum). The more attractions there are - the better we are as a city. Downtown and the current building would be perfect for a lot of things, that tourists would line up for. IF we just use our imagination. That building gets more attention and more neck craning from visitors than any other structure downtown except for the Devon Tower. No, I have no study for that, just years of witnessing it. I'm disappointed at how willing so many are at throwing away this building and making the same mistakes of the 60's and 70's. I posted way back the article from this last month's SLICE magazine, a picture and a short article with the headline, "You'll Miss Me When I'm Gone." I believe that. Do I have all the answers? No, I do not. But there are a lot of projects using taxpayer money that I don't have a good answer as to why it's being given away (except that it's going to the corporatocracy). I think there's room for a major public-private partnership here, one that would be a huge attraction rather than the limited uses of a stage theater.
I respect others viewpoints. I understand the polarizing look of the building. I really do. I only ask the same in return, and stop talking about how it has seen its day, there was a period for ideas and they were all rejected or withdrawn, the "nothing to see here, move along" attitude. I think once people realize we are serious about a re-purpose that would leave a lasting mark (with the cloud of flooding and demolition behind us) - we have a hidden treasure across the street from the Myriad Gardens. One that would compliment the public space and thrill children and others for many years to come. The can-do attitude is missing here. We all know why. Some are legitimate, some are greed because they've been salivating for this lot since the Devon Tower was announced. I'm speaking up for the public space - and imagination and possibilities.
No matter where you stand, thanks for your time in reading these last gasp words for public space and a bright future for 400 West Sheridan.
Teo9969 01-12-2014, 05:06 PM No doubt that zoo is right on this. There has been no serious community effort put into this building.
At the end of the day, people just don't care about having things that are unique. They want to be spoon-fed the same thing that every one else has. They'd rather have another shiny office tower that is absolutely unrecognizable to anyone other than the most ardent of skyscraper enthusiasts or people who have a basic knowledge of their region's skyscrapers.
So at the end of the day, the save stage-center crowd is wasting their breath, because the overwhelming majority of people simply don't have vision. Nobody can imagine making the best use of this, especially in OKC, because place-making is essentially non-existent here (and throughout this region). That's the difference between cities that have had centuries to develop and cities that have only had decades. I wish it were different, but it's not, and we're not the only American city making these mistakes.
I think you'll find that by statute, the future use cannot be the basis for denial of a demo permit.
Then we need to change the statute.
bchris02 01-12-2014, 05:21 PM No doubt that zoo is right on this. There has been no serious community effort put into this building.
At the end of the day, people just don't care about having things that are unique. They want to be spoon-fed the same thing that every one else has. They'd rather have another shiny office tower that is absolutely unrecognizable to anyone other than the most ardent of skyscraper enthusiasts or people who have a basic knowledge of their region's skyscrapers.
So at the end of the day, the save stage-center crowd is wasting their breath, because the overwhelming majority of people simply don't have vision. Nobody can imagine making the best use of this, especially in OKC, because place-making is essentially non-existent here (and throughout this region). That's the difference between cities that have had centuries to develop and cities that have only had decades. I wish it were different, but it's not, and we're not the only American city making these mistakes.
I bet if you took a poll, there would be more people that would support saving the Stage Center than tearing it down. However, its who has the money and power that gets to make the decisions.
We could really make this a cool building. I know a lot of people hate it, and that's part of what makes it valuable. It's a really weird structure. It's unique. People don't come to see it for two key reasons. First, it's not really in shape to be used right now. Second, we don't draw any attention to it. We have to incorporate it into the rest of the attractions downtown. Restore it and alter the landscaping around the thing to draw more people in, have something worth seeing inside, and you'll get more visitors. Right now we have a lot of trees around it, and their sole purpose is to hide the thing. Get rid of the trees, but up some lights and some video boards and people WILL go to see it.
Here's the thing, tourists want to see weird-ass architecture. If we celebrate it, then people who come to this city will remember it. Remember that Parisians hated the Eiffel Tower for decades and decades and decades. Now, Stage Center is not the Eiffel Tower, but it is far and away the most interesting looking thing we have in this city. I'm not even really concerned with out of town visitors, I think this could be a really cool thing for school field trips. I remember when I was a kid our class would come to the Arts Festival. Incorporating this and having a ton of weird art exhibits inside would be neat.
It took a long, long time before enough money came together to save the Skirvin, much longer than Stage Center has had. Don't be so quick to dismiss OKC's most eclectic possession.
Rover 01-12-2014, 05:55 PM Comparing this to the Eiffel Tower? Really? Obviously you've never been there if you think this is in any way as iconic as the Eiffel tower or that the economic or social importance is anywhere close or can even be used as an obtuse comparison.
So how many tourists will come to see this weird ass architecture and how much will they pay to do so? How much direct and indirect income would you expect the city to derive to offset costs? Please give us a viable economic argument?
Spartan 01-12-2014, 06:06 PM I think you'll find that by statute, the futiure use cannot be the basis for denial of a demo permit.
By what statute?
Teo9969 01-12-2014, 06:22 PM I bet if you took a poll, there would be more people that would support saving the Stage Center than tearing it down. However, its who has the money and power that gets to make the decisions.
I bet if you took a poll, most people would say C. "who cares?" given that option.
I bet if you then took a poll about whether or not the Thunder should trade Thabo Sefolosha or who should be voted off American Idol and included a C. "who cares?" option that the % of people who voted C. on the first question would trounce the % of people who voted C. on the second question.
mkjeeves 01-12-2014, 06:52 PM I bet if you took a poll, most people would say C. "who cares?" given that option.
I bet if you then took a poll about whether or not the Thunder should trade Thabo Sefolosha or who should be voted off American Idol and included a C. "who cares?" option that the % of people who voted C. on the first question would trounce the % of people who voted C. on the second question.
Who is Thabo Sefolosha? Nevermind. I don't care.
Spartan 01-12-2014, 06:54 PM No, don't trade Thabo!
Comparing this to the Eiffel Tower? Really? Obviously you've never been there if you think this is in any way as iconic as the Eiffel tower or that the economic or social importance is anywhere close or can even be used as an obtuse comparison.
So how many tourists will come to see this weird ass architecture and how much will they pay to do so? How much direct and indirect income would you expect the city to derive to offset costs? Please give us a viable economic argument?
I said it's not the same. But yes, I've been to the top of the Eiffel Tower. Cool structure. Still hated by a lot of people in Paris.
I'm not making an economic argument. I'm making a quality of life argument. We need more unique things in Oklahoma City. We need more museums. The city could renovate this for less than the cost of the Myriad Gardens renovation. The Gardens don't make money.
SoonerDave 01-12-2014, 07:16 PM I bet if you took a poll, there would be more people that would support saving the Stage Center than tearing it down. However, its who has the money and power that gets to make the decisions.
Were I gambling man, and I'm not, I'd mortgage the house and bet against you. The pro SC crowd has to realize that the overwhelming majority of the public doesn't genuflect when they drive by the place. This is a non-issue to most of the city.
I have absolutely no compunction in saying the place should be razed. Time for something new and beneficial to more than just a very narrow crowd of architecture enthusiasts.
SoonerDave 01-12-2014, 07:17 PM Then we need to change the statute.
Nope. That's what the design review process is for. If the design review process is broken, fix that.
SoonerDave 01-12-2014, 07:26 PM No doubt that zoo is right on this. There has been no serious community effort put into this building.
At the end of the day, people just don't care about having things that are unique. They want to be spoon-fed the same thing that every one else has. They'd rather have another shiny office tower that is absolutely unrecognizable to anyone other than the most ardent of skyscraper enthusiasts or people who have a basic knowledge of their region's skyscrapers.
So at the end of the day, the save stage-center crowd is wasting their breath, because the overwhelming majority of people simply don't have vision. Nobody can imagine making the best use of this, especially in OKC, because place-making is essentially non-existent here (and throughout this region). That's the difference between cities that have had centuries to develop and cities that have only had decades. I wish it were different, but it's not, and we're not the only American city making these mistakes.
Folks, the "Save the Stage Center" debate ended a while back. The place isn't salvageable. This politicking to abuse the demo permit process to superimpose some sort of pointless life support on the place is a waste of everyone's time and money.
Spartan 01-12-2014, 07:32 PM Folks, the "Save the Stage Center" debate ended a while back. The place isn't salvageable. This politicking to abuse the demo permit process to superimpose some sort of pointless life support on the place is a waste of everyone's time and money.
It ended with you on Day 1 since you were never interested. But you aren't the judge, jury, executioner just as I am not.
I am getting so tired of the pro-demolitionists speaking in abrasive absolutes. Why can't we stick to the topic at hand here?
coov23 01-12-2014, 09:24 PM It ended with you on Day 1 since you were never interested. But you aren't the judge, jury, executioner just as I am not.
I am getting so tired of the pro-demolitionists speaking in abrasive absolutes. Why can't we stick to the topic at hand here?
The anti-demolitionists are speaking in absolutes, as well. Just in the other end of the spectrum. No matter what decision is made, there's going to be a side in this debate that is upset.
Spartan 01-12-2014, 09:39 PM The anti-demolitionists are speaking in absolutes, as well. Just in the other end of the spectrum. No matter what decision is made, there's going to be a side in this debate that is upset.
Agreed. The real problem is that OKC's plan review process is so lacking that each side is denied the possibility of using leverage how they normally would in other cities, which hinders the ability for meeting in the middle and compromise.
Here in Cleveland I was negotiating before I came home for Xmas with preservationists in a downtown demolition and the chair of the Landmarks Commission who came out and said, "I'm just not seeing a plan here that is better than the building we already have, so your demolition permit will get a continuance until you make the improvements we've requested."
The developer came back two weeks later with the improvements made and got their demolition permit, really for a phenomenal development IMO that is 8-stories tall with a zero lot line and decent street interaction. The point is very rarely is the demolition of a historic landmark totally removed from the planned replacement. How you can have a reasonable debate here with these two aspects legally removed is utterly absurd. The typical compromise that would play out ANYWHERE else with normal laws would be that the historic landmark be used as leverage to get a better replacement proposal, which will then move forward in the name of "progress."
Here "history" is pitted against "progress" statutorily. While each side will understandably just try to do what they can within the legal framework, like I said, I just hope that it doesn't eliminate the potential for a middle ground. The problem of course is that said middle ground may not involve Rainey Williams unless he suddenly comes into real money and can deliver on "world class" whatever that means.
shawnw 01-12-2014, 09:56 PM So why hasn't anyone started a poll for demo/don't demo/don't care?
Richard at Remax 01-12-2014, 10:07 PM This thread needs a somber violen playing playing on repeat
Spartan 01-12-2014, 10:30 PM So why hasn't anyone started a poll for demo/don't demo/don't care?
Or DONT TRADE THABO
RickOKC 01-12-2014, 11:19 PM After reading pages of posts, news articles, and looking at renderings and petitions, I must confess that I'm very glad to leave this decision in the hands of qualified people who will have each side's case presented to them. I know that this a forum - so everybody is supposed to have an opinion and question everybody's motives and vilify the opposition. But I have to say - like I heard Steve say recently - I think I could make a compelling case for either perspective. And good people are on both sides of the argument. The process may be flawed, but I'm thankful we at least have one. I say, "May the best side (and by that I mean, the best side for the long term benefit of Oklahoma City) win."
OKVision4U 01-13-2014, 09:00 AM We could really make this a cool building. I know a lot of people hate it, and that's part of what makes it valuable. It's a really weird structure. It's unique. People don't come to see it for two key reasons. First, it's not really in shape to be used right now. Second, we don't draw any attention to it. We have to incorporate it into the rest of the attractions downtown. Restore it and alter the landscaping around the thing to draw more people in, have something worth seeing inside, and you'll get more visitors. Right now we have a lot of trees around it, and their sole purpose is to hide the thing. Get rid of the trees, but up some lights and some video boards and people WILL go to see it.
Here's the thing, tourists want to see weird-ass architecture. If we celebrate it, then people who come to this city will remember it. Remember that Parisians hated the Eiffel Tower for decades and decades and decades. Now, Stage Center is not the Eiffel Tower, but it is far and away the most interesting looking thing we have in this city. I'm not even really concerned with out of town visitors, I think this could be a really cool thing for school field trips. I remember when I was a kid our class would come to the Arts Festival. Incorporating this and having a ton of weird art exhibits inside would be neat.
It took a long, long time before enough money came together to save the Skirvin, much longer than Stage Center has had. Don't be so quick to dismiss OKC's most eclectic possession.
In my many conversations about OKC w/ people that are outside Oklahoma, I have never mentioned the Stage Center before. Not because I am against the arts ( not ), but it just isn't THAT piece of history or significance to our city. If they save some and move it to different location, fine. But Rainey should not have to be held hostage w/ this project... let's get it going either way.
OKCRT 01-13-2014, 05:25 PM I think people are getting off topic a bit. This isn't about saving the Stage center. This is about getting a World Class Skyscraper built on that site. RW isn't doing that so there's no reason for him to demolish the SC. BUT,there's no reason to try and garner support to save and rehab the SC because no one is going to do that. It's been tried. We just need to get this property out of current owners hands so we have a chance to get a World Class project done.
Lets not lose sight of the real objective here folks.
SoonerDave 01-13-2014, 05:40 PM It ended with you on Day 1 since you were never interested. But you aren't the judge, jury, executioner just as I am not.
As a citizen of OKC, I am abjectly interested, and my interest does not diminish nor become marginalized merely because you have unliaterally decided I'm on the wrong end of the argument.
I am getting so tired of the pro-demolitionists speaking in abrasive absolutes. Why can't we stick to the topic at hand here?
Just as I am tired of the anti-demolitionists speaking in their own kind of absolutes, simulatneously assuming a presumptive moral high ground by encouraging a usurpation of a logsitical, procedural process to achieve their own ends.
More specifically, the topic is about getting a demo permit issued. There is no reason not to issue the permit as requested.
Spartan 01-13-2014, 07:11 PM That was one of the loveliest "I know you are but what am I"a that I've seen just to speak to the maturity level of th back and forth we have here.
It's time for us all to sit on this thread until some actual new ideas or new developments occur.
zookeeper 01-13-2014, 07:19 PM I beg to differ with anyone claiming it's off-topic to talk about saving the Stage Center in this thread. As long as this world renowned structure is still standing and its fate is still being determined by a public process - it is perfectly on-topic.
I'm also not against "progress" or against a world-class skyscraper. A world-class skyscraper can go many places downtown. Some of my words have been turned around.
Here (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=Stage%20Center%20Tower&page=52#post731588) is my post again (http://www.okctalk.com/showwiki.php?title=Stage%20Center%20Tower&page=52#post731588).
And remember, the only "official" determination at this point (posted again below) and passed along to the Design Review Committee is very clear. They thought saving Stage Center was very much on topic.
http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/scdeny.jpg
betts 01-14-2014, 08:09 AM I see better reason to build a new tower in place of the Stage Center than I do to allow its demolition before a plan has been approved and funding is in place. I don't want the Stage Center destroyed, but I certainly don't want it to become a surface parking lot for two-plus years for a project no one has certainty will happen.
BoulderSooner 01-14-2014, 08:36 AM But that is not legally possible to inforce
David 01-14-2014, 08:48 AM In that case the question probably needs to be: how do we change that? If the problem is the city plan review process as Spartan has been saying, is that process something we need to start lobbying the city council to update?
But that is not legally possible to enforce
Then that needs to change right now.
Just because the rules are set up a certain way doesn't mean that we as citizens have to agree with them, or be satisfied.
Dubya61 01-14-2014, 09:56 AM 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.
What if a new Stage Center Theater were rebuilt? I really like this idea, the more I think on it. What if the way to save Stage Center is to duplicate it somewhere else? It's not the actual items used to make it and the way they were put together in the '70s that makes it unique. It's the design. Why don't we just rebuild Stage Center Theater ... somewhere else?
Jim Kyle 01-14-2014, 10:11 AM What if a new Stage Center Theater were rebuilt? I really like this idea, the more I think on it. What if the way to save Stage Center is to duplicate it somewhere else? It's not the actual items used to make it and the way they were put together in the '70s that makes it unique. It's the design. Why don't we just rebuild Stage Center Theater ... somewhere else?That makes far too much sense to be acceptable to folk who hate ANY wrecking ball that's not being ridden by a young female exhibitionist...
But I, at least, like it. If the design has any use at all for any purpose, starting over with it from scratch could definitely avoid many if not most of the problems that make the current version impractical to preserve!
Just the facts 01-14-2014, 10:20 AM What if a new Stage Center Theater were rebuilt? I really like this idea, the more I think on it. What if the way to save Stage Center is to duplicate it somewhere else? It's not the actual items used to make it and the way they were put together in the '70s that makes it unique. It's the design. Why don't we just rebuild Stage Center Theater ... somewhere else?
I proposed this as a solution 2 years ago and it went over like a lead balloon. Maybe it was the messenger and not the message. :)
OkieNate 01-14-2014, 10:35 AM What if a new Stage Center Theater were rebuilt? I really like this idea, the more I think on it. What if the way to save Stage Center is to duplicate it somewhere else? It's not the actual items used to make it and the way they were put together in the '70s that makes it unique. It's the design. Why don't we just rebuild Stage Center Theater ... somewhere else?
I agree with this and have stated previously this is what would be the best for all. Rebuild it with all reusable parts in the new city park where it cant be messed with and clear the land for Raineys parking garage.
shawnw 01-14-2014, 10:41 AM I agree with this and have stated previously this is what would be the best for all. Rebuild it with all reusable parts in the new city park where it cant be messed with and clear the land for Raineys parking garage.
Given that Hargrave is not even entertaining the idea of saving/incorporating the Film Exchange, there's low probability of a rebuilt SC going in the park. I vote for the adventure district personally, but am not strongly attached to that idea...
Urbanized 01-14-2014, 11:15 AM Why would you spend tens of millions of dollars (or more) to rebuild something you already have, and a thing that never resonated with the community to begin with? That's folly.
As for "relocating" SC, people don't understand that it is probably 80+% monumental reinforced concrete. The only "relocatable" parts are some ramps, walkways, and metal boxes that obscure air conditioners and mechanicals. The fact that so many people think it could be easily relocated or replicated, that it seems light, airy and almost portable is actually a testament to the architect and part of what makes the building notable.
Dubya61 01-14-2014, 11:45 AM Why would you spend tens of millions of dollars (or more) to rebuild something you already have, and a thing that never resonated with the community to begin with? That's folly.
1) Assuming the cost of land were negligible, what would it cost to construct Johansen's Mummers Theater from scratch? I don't think it would be 20 million +, would it? I genuinely don't know.
2) Perhaps it didn't resonate with the community to begin with, but maybe it was the site, poor timing, something else, I don't know, but it certain resonates with a few people here. There's this one guy over on another thread who thinks that the construct is a building that has achieved a status of arguable national or international importance and that we should place value on architecture and the built environment.
So then...you would support the demolition of City Hall and the Civic Center? I am all for stopping poor land use before it happens. That is absolutely correct and should ALWAYS be our goal going forward, especially downtown, and especially in light of what has transpired here for decades. That said, when a building achieves a status of arguable national or international importance, it transcends that discussion. Lots of people hate(d) Warhol, too.
You're right. It doesn't necessarily mean those things. It only means that as a community we place very little value on architecture and the built environment, which is a bummer in its own right.
As for "relocating" SC, people don't understand that it is probably 80+% monumental reinforced concrete. The only "relocatable" parts are some ramps, walkways, and metal boxes that obscure air conditioners and mechanicals. The fact that so many people think it could be easily relocated or replicated, that it seems light, airy and almost portable is actually a testament to the architect and part of what makes the building notable.
I don't advocate relocating it. I advocate replicating it, so that this piece of property would no longer carry the stigmata of some part of our OKC psyche that we'll lose to a corporate "tower". I believe we should raze it and build it from scratch. After all, the unique nature of the building isn't that it exists at the corner of Sheridan and Hudson. It's the design that's remarkable. If, for posterity purposes, you wanted to include the original tunnels in the second coming of the Mummer's Theater, then great, but just an extra benefit, not the goal. And it doesn't have to be done today, but if there's impetus to "save" the Mummers Theater, then it would be best to rebuild it while there's some tangible will.
Is it folly to replicate it? Ask those who like the building. Ask those who think it's part of what makes OKC great. Ask those who would be sorry to see it razed. I don't think it's folly. I think it's a good testament to OKC recognizing that we don't want to continue with the Pei Plan, but we DO want to continue to progress forward.
An interesting question to ask would be, would a viable Mummers Theater resonate with the arts crowd or some theater company and would it ever be a good part of the OKC community that didn't hemorrhage money if it were in working order?
Teo9969 01-14-2014, 11:47 AM Why would you spend tens of millions of dollars (or more) to rebuild something you already have, and a thing that never resonated with the community to begin with? That's folly.
As for "relocating" SC, people don't understand that it is probably 80+% monumental reinforced concrete. The only "relocatable" parts are some ramps, walkways, and metal boxes that obscure air conditioners and mechanicals. The fact that so many people think it could be easily relocated or replicated, that it seems light, airy and almost portable is actually a testament to the architect and part of what makes the building notable.
Relocating all of it in form is certainly not going to happen. Rebuilding the thing (and 10s of millions of dollars seems to be an overestimation…I'd bet closer to right around $10/15M) doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. The lot on which it sits has never been significant to the architecture. I think as long as it were built somewhere nearish downtown, that it would serve its original architectural purpose which seems largely to be independent of its surroundings anyway (which tended to be the thought process across many of the arts at that time). That's why in the Park or near the park, or down by the boathouse or near the River in general would be a great place for a rebuild. It would still have the backdrop of downtown, and it could have a more strategic concentration of development surrounding the Stage Center that could open up the ability for the Stage Center to interact more with its surroundings.
shawnw 01-14-2014, 11:51 AM I didn't think about the boathouse before. Might not be a bad idea given the angular shapes. BUT not at the sacrifice of any of the master plan items, so I like that idea if we can find a place down there.
Bellaboo 01-14-2014, 12:01 PM I proposed this as a solution 2 years ago and it went over like a lead balloon. Maybe it was the messenger and not the message. :)
I also brought this up, to move a few sections of it to the new park......just didn't get any traction either.
David 01-14-2014, 12:47 PM If nobody with the money to do so wanted to renovate it, imaging that there are people out there who would pay to rebuild it is a pipe dream.
OKCisOK4me 01-14-2014, 12:48 PM Can we change the name of this thread to 'What May Crop Up on the Stage Center Site'? Cause I still open this thread thinking I'll read valuable information...
UnFrSaKn 01-14-2014, 12:55 PM Can we change the name of this thread to 'What May Crop Up on the Stage Center Site'? Cause I still open this thread thinking I'll read valuable information...
Like
OkieNate 01-14-2014, 01:04 PM Can we change the name of this thread to 'What May Crop Up on the Stage Center Site'? Cause I still open this thread thinking I'll read valuable information...
If you have valuable information please share. Otherwise what harm does open conversation do? What do you think about relocating SC? Or are you in the "just get rid of the damn thing" camp? We all know nothing new or exciting will happen until after the meeting Thursday...
OKVision4U 01-14-2014, 01:10 PM If Rainey was needing to gain momentum w/ his project, he would be more out-front w/ his proposal. Since OG&E is ( 50 - 100 % ) part of this deal, then there may be a couple of reason why Rainey is "less" visible w/ his plans.
1. Rainey is still needing to put the final pieces together regarding his finances and needs more time for obvious reasons...needing capital. If so, then most likely the project will be more moderate in scale & design.
2. Or, since OG&E is looking to be a "sole" tennant in this tower, and needing more space than the "original renderings" would indicate. Not wanting to hear the nagging until it is absolutely neccessary by building a large tower (john q public), they wait until the concrete is ready to pour.
I feel it may be the latter. If he does have OG&E, then his financing should be inplace to move this forward and he would still want to have a PR buzz with this project. ...but no buzz? that is even more reason to think they are controlling their PR until the right time to announce a Large Tower ( 30 - 40 stories ). ?????
OKCisOK4me 01-14-2014, 01:18 PM If you have valuable information please share. Otherwise what harm does open conversation do? What do you think about relocating SC? Or are you in the "just get rid of the damn thing" camp? We all know nothing new or exciting will happen until after the meeting Thursday...
If you go to skyscraperpage.com, specific projects are usually listed as an address or called what the former site was known as until the official name becomes available. The title of this thread is misleading and, yes, just a bunch of open discussion about hampster tubes and boxes. A lot of this open discussion could be transferred to a new thread called 'Save Stage Center Site'. Agreed?
CuatrodeMayo 01-14-2014, 01:34 PM While the situation is somewhat different, here is a comparable situation in Portland: Michael Graves's Portland Building Faces Demolition Threat - Architect Magazine (http://www.architectmagazine.com/preservation/portland-building-threatened.aspx?dfpzone=home)
jccouger 01-14-2014, 01:39 PM Rebuilding the stage center in the new C2S shore park is a brilliant idea, and would actually create a sense of place for this district. With the myriad botanical gardens tube to the north, the skydance bridge to the south, and the Stage center a part of the park we would now have a "unconventional art district". It could influence the design of all future developments around the park and create the most unique district in our entire city. I'm all for this idea! If they agreed to rebuild the stage center then I'd finally be able to accept the less then stellar conceptual design for the Rainey parking garage.
OkieNate 01-14-2014, 01:43 PM If you go to skyscraperpage.com, specific projects are usually listed as an address or called what the former site was known as until the official name becomes available. The title of this thread is misleading and, yes, just a bunch of open discussion about hampster tubes and boxes. A lot of this open discussion could be transferred to a new thread called 'Save Stage Center Site'. Agreed?
I don't disagree. Yet, it's all relative, is it not? Also this is OKCTalk, not skyscraperpage, although I think thread title by address is a good idea.
Urbanized 01-14-2014, 02:26 PM While the situation is somewhat different, here is a comparable situation in Portland: Michael Graves's Portland Building Faces Demolition Threat - Architect Magazine (http://www.architectmagazine.com/preservation/portland-building-threatened.aspx?dfpzone=home)
Thanks for posting that. Seems about right.
UnFrSaKn 01-14-2014, 11:00 PM Posted in the other thread also.
Pros & Cons: Stage Center's future takes center stage | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/pros-cons-stage-centers-future-takes-center-stage/article/3923845)
Supporters seek to save Oklahoma City's Stage Center | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/supporters-seek-to-save-oklahoma-citys-stage-center/article/3923846)
This recent photos shows how the school -- which has now reached full height -- will relate to this site:
http://www.okctalk.com/attachments/development-buildings/6085d1389797638-stage-center-tower-sc111314a.jpg
Urbanized 01-15-2014, 09:30 AM 1) Assuming the cost of land were negligible, what would it cost to construct Johansen's Mummers Theater from scratch? I don't think it would be 20 million +, would it? I genuinely don't know.
Well, considering the fact that everyone accepted estimates of $10 million to renovate an existing building and $20 million to make ready for arts groups, and accepted these figures without questioning them, I would say that a "guesstimate" of perhaps tens of millions TO REBUILD IT FROM SCRATCH doesn't seem ridiculous.
Is it folly to replicate it? Ask those who like the building. Ask those who think it's part of what makes OKC great. Ask those who would be sorry to see it razed.
I fall squarely into all three groups. I think it's folly. The building is either a treasure where it sits, or it shouldn't be repeated. Sometimes we have to make grown-up choices.
BTW, in the video attached to Steve's two new articles today, he says "proposed 16-18 story tower".
Don't know if something has changed or if that was just a slip.
OKCisOK4me 01-15-2014, 07:28 PM I don't disagree. Yet, it's all relative, is it not? Also this is OKCTalk, not skyscraperpage, although I think thread title by address is a good idea.
That it is. ;) I checked my thread. No one has even looked at it, but I had to disguise it in such a generic fashion so that if someone opens the thread and sees just the pic then they can respond with "why yessss, that building is an iconic and cherished work of architecture" or they can respond with "why is this pic from the 1970s?" lol. It'll probably be torn down before my post gets a response...
zookeeper 01-15-2014, 08:28 PM That it is. ;) I checked my thread. No one has even looked at it, but I had to disguise it in such a generic fashion so that if someone opens the thread and sees just the pic then they can respond with "why yessss, that building is an iconic and cherished work of architecture" or they can respond with "why is this pic from the 1970s?" lol. It'll probably be torn down before my post gets a response...
I answered you in another thread. Your logic is faulty with your "experiment."
I wrote: You miss the point. Completely. It has nothing to do with how many recognize the Stage Center. Nothing. That's not what makes it valuable. It is art - in and of itself. I could show you many paintings that you wouldn't "recognize" but I would then tell you how much preservation went into them and how they sold for millions of dollars. Your not knowing about that painting has nothing to do with its value as art.
It's obvious you hate the Stage Center with all the "hamster tubes and boxes" comments. You see that, many others see art - beauty. And possibilities!
Prunepicker 01-15-2014, 09:20 PM I'm pretty sure that I'm on record for tearing this eye sore down. Take a
bunch of photos and build a $250,000 building to show them. Charge
admission too. That'll let us know what the city really think of this
monstrosity.
Naptown12713 01-15-2014, 09:39 PM I found this video of a mid-rise tower in Milwaukee that could be a precursor of the Stage/OGE proposal. Click link to view: 833 East Michigan (http://www.833east.com/video)
OKCisOK4me 01-16-2014, 01:33 AM I answered you in another thread. Your logic is faulty with your "experiment."
I wrote: You miss the point. Completely. It has nothing to do with how many recognize the Stage Center. Nothing. That's not what makes it valuable. It is art - in and of itself. I could show you many paintings that you wouldn't "recognize" but I would then tell you how much preservation went into them and how they sold for millions of dollars. Your not knowing about that painting has nothing to do with its value as art.
It's obvious you hate the Stage Center with all the "hamster tubes and boxes" comments. You see that, many others see art - beauty. And possibilities!
I could create the most amazing sand castle on the beach and it could be a work of art until the tide comes in and removes it. Whether I know the artist or not--mind you I am an artist myself and I have studied artists and majored in graphic art and graphic design--this work of art from the Brutalist Period of architecture is not something I prefer to love but love to hate.
|
|