One argument I've heard constantly throughout this is the people who want to keep the Stage Center, unless we were getting a truly iconic world class structure, is that all we care about is "tall & shiny"..

Really though, if you are the one wanting the Stage Center torn down to get this building which is taller, which is shinier.. who is really a part of the "tall & shiny crowd"? Hypocritical and ironic, Don'tcha say?

I care about keeping a one of a kind structure, unless we are replacing it with another one of a kind structure which should be far and way better than what is already there. Not just some boring corporate mid rise, which we MAY or MAY NOT even get.

Seriously though, you guys realize the "plans" for this site are all conceptual right? That means that somebody just drew a pretty picture. No architects were involved in the design at all. Just some computer nerd who is good at graphic design. In fact, people on OKCtalk have been posting conceptual plans for this site for the last 2 years and those are just as legitimate as this concept is. The actual building we are gonna get will be 1/10 as visually appealing as the concepts we are shown now. But you guys can't wrap your head around that because obviously you guys just regurgitate everything that is thrown right in front of your faces.

You guys have been posting bull**** stats about the stage center from the get go just because somebody told you its true. Those maintenance costs are bull****, the time frame Stage center has been nonfunctional is bull****, the only reason the stage center flooded was because of human error of destroying some of the doors NOT because of the design.

Somebody is grouchy this morning.

He's probably just tired of all of the really ugly talk coming from one direction.

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)

This is on the front page of paper this morning here in Jax. The Jacksonville Landing is going away and replaced with a very similar RW type design.
Landing owner Tony Sleiman and Mayor Alvin Brown agree: It's time to build an entirely new Jacksonville Landing | members.jacksonville.com (http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-01-15/story/landing-owner-tony-sleiman-and-mayor-alvin-brown-agree-its-build)

http://members.jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/lead_photo_wide/JaxLandingRenderingInfoGraphic.JPG

BTW - this type of design is known as the Vancouver Model (but here in America we substitute car parking for residential units).

For more info on the Vancouver Model you can read this.

http://designobserver.com/media/pdf/New_Urbanism:__647.pdf

Hard to tell from the rendering, but that really doesn't seem to have good interaction with the waterfront. That is always a head scratcher to me when that happens.

Hard to tell from the rendering, but that really doesn't seem to have good interaction with the waterfront. That is always a head scratcher to me when that happens.

Not to derail this thread but the current Landing creates a barrier between downtown Jax and the river plus has no sidewalk interaction on the city side of the building. This proposal is way better and the riverfront will be lined with sidewalk cafes and public art, with office space in the podium fronting the river. Plus by having the open space in the podium it will create a really nice terminal view of the river and stage from Laura St, which is Jacksonville's premier New Urbanism demonstrator street. This project is going to 'right' so many 'wrongs' present in downtown Jax.

Sorry to everyone for the slight detour but I thought it was relevant to show similar projects in other cities. Now back to our regularly scheduled program - Stage Center.

Great news then. Like I said, hard to tell that from the rendering. Ignoring waterfronts is usually even more prevalent than ignoring street interaction.

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 think that people who do view it as a work of art would react the same way they would if you suggested that the destruction of any original work of art is mitigated, or even justified, because it can now be duplicated. It's certainly a more sentimental than rational reaction, but I can kind of understand it. However, if demolition becomes imminent, I'm sure such a compromise would be considered, though probably never funded.

I'm a big advocate of stage center and I have already stated my reasons why, but I have realized that Stage Center will never be (and probably never was) the type of work that will be appreciated by the Oklahoma City population at large. It's just too different and unlike anything else around. That not only leads to it being branded an eyesore, but it's so offensive to the status quo that many have the position that it MUST be torn down, regardless of whether the site is re-purposed. In addition, its seems a common opinion is that architectural ambition is defined more by size and less by the uniqueness of the structure. At the end of the day, we really do live in a culture that is pretty much defined by it's efforts to achieve homogeneity and, if we're being honest with ourselves, Oklahoma is pretty well known for taking that to the extremes. It just makes sense that its developmental process and architectural mix would reflect that.

You can put it anywhere you want and most will still look at it and say:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV7Qz640OeM

And around here, that's not a good thing. Our mission statement is to "be the same", and Stage Center is never going to get much love (or money) no matter what you do with it because it's just too darn different looking.

^^^^^

Indeed.

Steve is tweeting live from the Downtown Design Review Committee:

https://twitter.com/stevelackmeyer

Steve's OKC Central ‏@stevelackmeyer 22m
Dedmon says a possible green roof would provide amenities to OGE, screen the parking from the building and rest of downtown.

Sounds like the roof would only be open to OG&E, not the public.

It also sounds like OG&E is the only tenant for this project, outside the possibility of Williams spinning off a parcel to be developed by someone else.

You guys have been posting bull**** stats about the stage center from the get go just because somebody told you its true. Those maintenance costs are bull****, the time frame Stage center has been nonfunctional is bull****, the only reason the stage center flooded was because of human error of destroying some of the doors NOT because of the design.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Have you spoken with anyone who has used the building in the past several years? Check Steve Lackmeyer's tweets beginning at 10:00 when Peter Dolese (OKC Arts Council) describes his experiences with the building, the operating costs, building system repair costs, the subsidies for performance groups, and what was lost in the floods.

It's just too different and unlike anything else around. That not only leads to it being branded an eyesore, but it's so offensive to the status quo that many have the position that it MUST be torn down, regardless of whether the site is re-purposed.
...snip...
Our mission statement is to "be the same", and Stage Center is never going to get much love (or money) no matter what you do with it because it's just too darn different looking.This seems to be a widely held opinion among many posters in these threads. However a number of counter-examples exist. If we're all so opposed to anything unusual, how do you explain the success of efforts to save the Gold Dome at NW 23 and Classen, or for that matter the Milk Bottle a couple of blocks to the north.

Another example can be found at NW 36 and Walker, where the late Rev. Bill Alexander built his "Church of Tomorrow" AKA "The Big Easter Egg."

Sure, these examples are "unlike anything else around" and that makes them unusual -- but they exist and at least some of them are cherished by the general public. Many, if not most, examples of Brutalist Architecture are, however, simply brutal. That's what many of us (including myself) find offensive, not the fact that a structure may be unique!

I will say, however, that the "eyesore" and "TEAR IT DOWN!!" screaming drumbeat usually starts as soon as ANY proposed candidate for demolition enters the collective consciousness, regardless of the architectural style or a building's individual merit. Some people just like to see stuff torn down (I think they often - or always - equate it with progress) and generally regard any talk of preservation as the senseless drivel of good-for-nothing filthy hippie building huggers.

If a good but troubled building can stay off of the radar long enough for the right visionary or champion to discover it, sometimes it has a chance. Witness: Marion Hotel, Journal Record Building, Skirvin Hotel, Main Street Arcade, 9th Street houses, Braniff, Plaza Court, most of the buildings left standing in Automobile Alley, the old section of Bricktown, and Film Row. All of them provide a sense of place and uniqueness that could not have been bought at any price with new construction.

Stage Center: definitely NOT off of the radar these days. The screamers and shouters will definitely get their wish here.

This seems to be a widely held opinion among many posters in these threads. However a number of counter-examples exist. If we're all so opposed to anything unusual, how do you explain the success of efforts to save the Gold Dome at NW 23 and Classen, or for that matter the Milk Bottle a couple of blocks to the north.

Another example can be found at NW 36 and Walker, where the late Rev. Bill Alexander built his "Church of Tomorrow" AKA "The Big Easter Egg."

Sure, these examples are "unlike anything else around" and that makes them unusual -- but they exist and at least some of them are cherished by the general public. Many, if not most, examples of Brutalist Architecture are, however, simply brutal. That's what many of us (including myself) find offensive, not the fact that a structure may be unique!

Those buildings all found their particular champion, Jim. Some do, some don't. Fact of life. Stage center has not, for the reasons BDP eloquently outlines above. Turn the page.

Say that the entire process concludes (including district court) and the demolition permit is denied. RW is stuck with the land and building. What next?

Say that the entire process concludes (including district court) and the demolition permit is denied. RW is stuck with the land and building. What next?

I don't think that will happen but in the unlikely event it does...

Then I suppose Rainey will get real serious about finding someone who wants to renovate and repurpose the property, otherwise he eats $4.2 million.

By the way, the Gold Dome ain't exactly unique. Worth saving? Absolutely. But it is a REPLICA of a Buckminster Fuller design, and examples exist all over the country.

Unlike almost any other building in OKC, Mummers was actually designed for the site by an internationally-acclaimed architect. It is truly unique, was groundbreaking for its era, and was recognized as such by the AIA and MoMA.

Fort Worth:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Casa_Manana_01.jpg

Centenary College:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Gold_Dome_at_Centenary_College_IMG_1407.JPG

Vote is starting to happen and there are already two committee members who are in favor of demolition.

Gah, wish I weren't such a terrible public speaker. Committee minds likely made up before the meeting. This project looks like another weak excuse for a giant parking garage. And then they'll find they don't have the money for that "garden roof" and we'll look like fools again.

Last post I will make on this topic today (which I'm sure will be good news for The Screamers): the decision was made to demolish Stage Center and its fate was sealed, not in this meeting or any other recent event, but when there was no attempt made to incorporate its renovation and activation into the redesign of Myriad Botanical Gardens and construction of Devon Tower.

R.I.P., Mummers Theater.

TEAR DOWN THIS WALL — I mean, structure.

Yes, the Stage Center never found it's guardian angel; or at least one with deep enough pockets and a real passion for the building.

Demolition approved, 3-2.

Demolition approved, 3-2.
Sanity prevailed.

It's like pulling the plug on a loved one. Some will miss the person, some couldn't stand the person when they were alive, some only remember the healthy good times, and some remember all the hard work and personal sacrifice trying to care for them in old age.

Close vote.

Very, very mixed feelings but I suppose now the best thing to do is to make sure this new project is as good as possible.

But of course, the committee won't really have any leverage with the developer; they just have to meet very basic requirements.

And again I have to ask, what do we need to address so that this particular comment:

https://twitter.com/stevelackmeyer/status/423861954285809664

City attorney advising can't condition demolition on future development, as requested by Chuck Ainsworth. David Box agreeing...

Is no longer true? Is this a city ordinance issue? A state law issue?

^

I don't think there is a way to make demolition conditional on development because it's unenforceable.

Once a building is gone you can't force someone to build. And 9 times out of 10, developments change even once commenced... Financing backs out, tenants flake, costs end up being much higher, etc.

Demo has been approved....

GiGi Faulkner broke the tie.

I didn't read Steve's articles - who abstained from voting and why? Or were they simply gone?

^

I don't think there is a way to make demolition conditional on development because it's unenforceable.

Once a building is gone you can't force someone to build. And 9 times out of 10, developments change even once commenced... Financing backs out, tenants flake, costs end up being much higher, etc.

Probably the only thing to do is make the demo permit part of the building permit with no approval for demo being required. You get approval to build you can demo what is on the property. If you aren't going to build anything there is no way to get a demo permit.

In essence - do away with the entire demo permit process.

That may be so Pete, but from Spartan's experiences in Cleveland that he was talking about just a little up-thread:


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.

I am getting the impression that our local laws could at least be modified to give the review process more teeth.

Don't worry. They're building a great big parking garage with a green roof so Devon won't have to look at it.

I believe the instance the Spartan is citing would not be enforceable if push came to shove. Just like the committees in OKC often make recommendations and the applicants will usually abide to expedite the process. But in reality, they are merely requests, not requirements and would not only not hold up on appeal, but the City might be financially liable for unduly delaying construction if lawyers got involved.

Also, there has to be a separate demolition process because there are often dilapidated structures that are unsafe.


In reality, the best solution to this problem is to make the city great and thus the land too valuable to sit idle or put to it's highest and best use.

Perhaps the solution is to identify "super high value properties" in areas adjacent to large public investments and make a much higher design standard for those select properties. However, I can absolutely see where that would also foment heartburn, aggravation and lawsuits.

Just do away with the demo permit process.

Create an urban development overlay district which doesn't have a demo process and tie the demo in with the building permit. At that point the plans will all be final, financing will be in place, the city and residents will see exactly what is to be built, and the review committee can see if the proposed new structure is good enough to warrant removal of the old structure and then simply approve or deny the building permit. If you aren't going to build anything there is no way you can demo a structure because there is no building permit.

If your structure gets listed on the 'dilapidated building' list you can either build something, sell to someone who will, stop paying taxes on it and let OCURA take over, or donate it to the City for redevelopment and get a tax deduction.

3 flatbeds already parked outside with bulldozers.


Just kidding. I really hope this turns out well.

The lesson for architects is that buildings must also be functional and affordable.

Panel clears Stage Center demolition | News OK (http://newsok.com/panel-clears-stage-center-demolition/article/3924341)

Scratch one more reason to go downtown.

At this point the best thing I can say about this project is at least it wont block views of the Devon tower too significantly...

Scratch one more reason to go downtown.

Oh cmon now -- as if over the past several years Stage Center has given anyone warm fuzzies downtown. :/
Not saying I agree with its demolition (solely because of the fact I think Rainey Willliams' potential development will be a complete letdown), but to insinuate this was some amazing draw to the CBD is misguided at best.

It gives me warm fuzzies. But, had there been some amazing development planned for the spot, I might have been sad but somewhat compensated by what was planned. The presentation today was full of "planned" and "projected". And the majority of the land will be occupied by a parking garage. No one but people in towers around it will be able to see its green roof. If that even happens. This plan is mediocre and pedestrian, IMO. We deserve better for losing a unique and irreplaceable part of downtown. If I were a multimillionaire, I would have saved the Stage Center and counted myself lucky to be able to do so.

Had court helping some folks with first world problems this morning.
Goodbye SC. Thanks for the memories, and know that part of me actually is sad I suck at lotto picks.

Scratch one more reason to go downtown.

WTF? Were you a copper thief or some such raiding the SC after the flood?

The more I think this over, it really stinks like a back room deal of which the conclusion was known long before today's approval. I may be over-invested in tin foil, but with plenty of other lots out there and the stinking cheap deal that RW/OGE got, I have to wonder if this was a mercy killing to benefit the Stage Center's previous proprietors and RW is just the executioner.

I'm told that the copper has already been stolen.

Is it possible that Rainey will demolish Stage Center and then sell the land to someone else and build his tower elsewhere? I know it isn't likely, but if he DID sell the land, would it be more profitable to sell it before or after demolition? Would the land be more valuable if it was already clear and ready to be built on?

Most certainly more valuable to a developer cleared.

The land would be more valuable without having to deal with the uncertainty around Stage Center but this is all about OG&E and what they want, not Rainey Williams.

And OG&E really wants to be on this site and you can't blame them for wanting to be there.

Oh cmon now -- as if over the past several years Stage Center has given anyone warm fuzzies downtown. :/
Not saying I agree with its demolition (solely because of the fact I think Rainey Willliams' potential development will be a complete letdown), but to insinuate this was some amazing draw to the CBD is misguided at best.

Amazing draw no. One less reason for me to go there though.

My list keeps getting shorter, not longer.

Business.
Occasional special event. (Like once a year.)
Art Museum.

and that's about it.

However, for an anecdote...

I had an art friend from Denver meet me in Tulsa about five years ago for the New Genre Arts Festival. After a couple of days of events scattered around Tulsa including at the Philbrook, we drove to OKC and spent a day before he flew home. He had never been here or to Tulsa before. I drove him around the city, we dropped in the art museum and had lunch at Tapwerks since he's a beer geek. We also parked at Stage Center, got out to look at the building. Of everything we did that week, it was the only place where in the middle of the visit he stopped, looked me in the eye and told me thanks for taking him to see it.

I think it's safe to say that by a huge majority, people are finding more and more reasons to go downtown, not less.

There are exceptions of course, but only exceptions.

I can't believe there isn't more backlash that OGE is the main tenant, considering they are a monopoly and we have to pay them no matter what. And if you check your bill, there is a lot more than just a basic usage fee. We have to pay them even if we used 0 electricity.

We are effectively paying for this tower, on the most prime real estate in Oklahoma City. We are basically paying FOR the demolition. Absurd.

yes, another eyesore gone, now we need to get rid of the stupid gold dome

I can't believe there isn't more backlash that OGE is the main tenant, considering they are a monopoly and we have to pay them no matter what. And if you check your bill, there is a lot more than just a basic usage fee. We have to pay them even if we used 0 electricity.

We are effectively paying for this tower, on the most prime real estate in Oklahoma City. We are basically paying FOR the demolition. Absurd.

No! It's Rainey Williams not OG&E!! :rolleyes:

"What a wonderful building." said no one forever about what's getting ready to be in its place.