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.

Well, I wouldn't really categorize those things as unusual, really. Geodesic design is familiar to anyone who goes to Epcot Center and novelty structures like the Mile Bottle have kinda become Route 66s reason for being. I don't want to discount their historic value or architectural interest, especially on a city level, but they are not unfamiliar designs or concepts that are hard to find elsewhere. Stage Center was. They are unique to Oklahoma City, however, which is where their real contribution is made, imo. There are always exceptions for sure, but the score of historic demolition vs preservation is so lopsided its not even an arguable point. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that demolition in the core over the last 50 years still outnumbers new construction and renovation during that time. But this is just what Oklahoma City does. I think I linked to it earlier in this thread, but try and find the 3 volume set called "The Vanished Splendor", which is made up postcards and pictures of Oklahoma City, most of which has been demolished. Oklahoma City, both culturally and institutionally, has never really valued its architectural history or held on to many things that were unique even to itself. Things seem to be changing and developers who have chosen preservation and innovation seem to have been rewarded for doing so. However, city government and its affiliated bureaucratic agencies have really never stood in the way of demolition, and often encourages it. I mean, if few care about a building that served as the first state capitol building in Oklahoma City, who cares about a unique and weird looking community theater that is internationally respected, but locally despised? They ain't from here, right?


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.

Its fate was sealed when it was built here:


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

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

And, in Oklahoma City, they should look like something we've seen before.

And, in Oklahoma City, they should look like something we've seen before.

Vernacular architecture has a universal appeal.

Mixed feelings about this. I can see both sides to the issue. All I can do is hope for the best for the new building.

The demolition of Stage Center was a forgone conclusion, to me, that was not the biggest takeaway from today. In my opinion, it was a giant opportunity wasted that no one in the room questioned the actual project itself. It was promised to be "world class", but based on the plans, falls far short of that. It should've been brought up by someone, that if a new development is going to replace an "iconic" structure on such an important piece of real estate, why go with such a mediocre proposal? For all the reasons mentioned on this board about the sketchiness of the project, Williams should have been put to task for his lack of vision for such an important site. I know he can build what he wants once the permit was granted, but we could've received some answers or even pressed him for more specifics.

If Rainey builds short, he will be leaving $$$ on the table. The building next to him is over $1B in value and he is worried about 14-16 stories, ( cost driven anxiety ).?

If I could give Rainey one piece of ( free ) advice is this: Short & ugly never sells. Tall & beautiful is always desired.

He shouldn't try to compete w/ Devon, but his goal should place him ahead of the others.

I can almost hear the jingle in the pockets.

No further comment.

The demolition of Stage Center was a forgone conclusion, to me, that was not the biggest takeaway from today. In my opinion, it was a giant opportunity wasted that no one in the room questioned the actual project itself. It was promised to be "world class", but based on the plans, falls far short of that. It should've been brought up by someone, that if a new development is going to replace an "iconic" structure on such an important piece of real estate, why go with such a mediocre proposal? For all the reasons mentioned on this board about the sketchiness of the project, Williams should have been put to task for his lack of vision for such an important site. I know he can build what he wants once the permit was granted, but we could've received some answers or even pressed him for more specifics.

If you follow Steve's Twitter updates and refer to earlier posts in this thread, you'll see that the decision to approve or deny the permit is not to consider future plans for the property and the city's General Counsel reminded The Board of that during the proceedings.

What amazes me is at the eleventh hour, not one person who was in favor of preserving SC was able to come up with a viable, cost effective solution to saving this structure. Just simply signing of petitions to save a crumbling, run down money pit. Not one person could come up with the $$$$$$ to save it. I guess the saying is true, "Put your money where your mouth is". I never had an infinity for the SC, as to me it is nothing but a hodge podge of corrugated metal and stained concrete that is not attractive or visually appealing. I guess "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I just don't see the connection to saving this building. Maybe perhaps, Rainey Williams final rendering and drawing will surprise us all!

If Rainey builds short, he will be leaving $$$ on the table. The building next to him is over $1B in value and he is worried about 14-16 stories, ( cost driven anxiety ).?

If I could give Rainey one piece of ( free ) advice is this: Short & ugly never sells. Tall & beautiful is always desired.

He shouldn't try to compete w/ Devon, but his goal should place him ahead of the others.

Building big with spec space would turn this building into a competitive threat to what is built on the west parcel, and therefore lower it's potential sales price, and possibly the number of interested buyers.

Vernacular architecture has a universal appeal.

Not really. There are actually places in the world that don't like standard Wal-Marts or the boxy office parks that dominate the OKC landscape.

Building big with spec space would make this building compete with what another developer will construct on the west side, and therefore lower it's potential sales price. What he loses by "building short" will be made up by the other site, and increase the number of potential buyers.

Tom, in todays local economy & demand back in the CBD, both should be (driving demand ) by having an "we are here statement", not "Well we're a nice average piece of real-estate, but the new one across the street can help you". In an UP market for large scale real estate the products delivered to the market should be greater than the existing demand. This keeps the next project going bigger and not slowing the market. ...this is the HOW to build a snow ball effect in real estate.

Rainey Willaims is not building spec space to lease... He's effectively building exactly what OG&E needs and no more; apart from some extra parking.

Rainey Willaims is not building spec space to lease... He's effectively building exactly what OG&E needs and no more; apart from some extra parking.

Those jobs for the most part are already downtown too aren't they?

Rainey Willaims is not building spec space to lease... He's effectively building exactly what OG&E needs and no more; apart from some extra parking.

So are they moving ALL of their employees to this new building (and how many do they have?) or just consolidating their employees who are not in their current building?

Tom, in todays local economy & demand back in the CBD, both should be (driving demand ) by having an "we are here statement", not "Well we're a nice average piece of real-estate, but the new one across the street can help you". In an UP market for large scale real estate the products delivered to the market should be greater than the existing demand. This keeps the next project going bigger and not slowing the market. ...this is the HOW to build a snow ball effect in real estate.

...this is also how you build DEMAND for your product too. And, the lending groups feel more relaxed when all the surrounding new projects are increasing in scale & design. Thus, escalation in values.

I can almost hear the jingle in the pockets.

No further comment.

To be clear --- I mean certain members of the DDRC. This was a sham.

So who will post the members and their votes? I also think at least one of those two "no votes" was a sham, just to make it look good. I saw this coming a mile away.

Is there another city with it's PUBLIC UTILITY company occupying a "world class" tower on prime real estate in the CBD? I am curious is this a normal practice?

So are they moving ALL of their employees to this new building (and how many do they have?) or just consolidating their employees who are not in their current building?

The past rumor has been around 1000 employees from 2 or 3 different buildings.

...this is also how you build DEMAND for your product too. And, the lending groups feel more relaxed when all the surrounding new projects are increasing in scale & design. Thus, escalation in values.

Not sure how you get escalating values by purposely overbuilding. If I'm not mistaken, it was that philosophy that led to a huge surplus of office space and plunging rents about a decade (?) ago.

I mean, its easy to say "We should have a Taj Mahal office building here!" and conversely be dismissive about someone else's reluctance to do it when you're spending someone else's money. The folks with the ready cash and/or resources to invest in large-scale complexes also know they've got to get some kind of return on those dollars - heck, that's why they have the $$ in the first place. If you have the choice between spending a huge sum on a huge building, or a smaller sum on a smaller building, knowing the returns on either won't be markedly different, or that your occupancy rate will be better on the latter because you have reason to suspect that "high end" space won't be fully occupied - perhaps for a long time - it becomes a great deal simpler to go with the smaller, simpler project.

i mean, its easy to say "we should have a taj mahal office building here!" and conversely be dismissive about someone else's reluctance to do it when you're spending someone else's money. The folks with the ready cash and/or resources to invest in large-scale complexes also know they've got to get some kind of return on those dollars - heck, that's why they have the $$ in the first place.
bingo!

For better or worse, to be honest I don't see "for profit" public energy (OG&E, ONG, etc.) to survive the next 10-15 years. By necessity.
Their goals clash with worldwide sustainability .....go ahead and bookmark this post.

not standing up for OGE but A) they aren't putting up the money for this. they are going to lease and B) regardless if they are a public utilities company or not, who are you to say they can't move to new offices?

Not sure how you get escalating values by purposely overbuilding. If I'm not mistaken, it was that philosophy that led to a huge surplus of office space and plunging rents about a decade (?) ago.

I mean, its easy to say "We should have a Taj Mahal office building here!" and conversely be dismissive about someone else's reluctance to do it when you're spending someone else's money. The folks with the ready cash and/or resources to invest in large-scale complexes also know they've got to get some kind of return on those dollars - heck, that's why they have the $$ in the first place. If you have the choice between spending a huge sum on a huge building, or a smaller sum on a smaller building, knowing the returns on either won't be markedly different, or that your occupancy rate will be better on the latter because you have reason to suspect that "high end" space won't be fully occupied - perhaps for a long time - it becomes a great deal simpler to go with the smaller, simpler project.

You are confusing financing & investing....w/ Real Estate. If Rainey builds short, he will be leaving money on the table ( real estate ). His neighbor, DEVON, is worth over $1B in value. Rainey's hands are being tied by the OG&E relationship, not the market. The only reason Rainey is building short, is due to his relationship w/ OG&E, and he needs their ( signature on a lease ) to finance the project. If he was able to float the note on his own, he would build a 40+ World Class A building. That is what the real estate ( $1B Neighborhood ) calling for.

Then, if he built his 40 +, then the next developer can justify another one across the street w/ 45 stories. In real estate, you don't want your neighbors lower value bringing yours down.

Also, when DEVON added 1M + sf of Class A, they increased the demand for the CBD, for more. Not less.

So are they moving ALL of their employees to this new building (and how many do they have?) or just consolidating their employees who are not in their current building?

This has never been clear, and even people at OG&E don't know for sure.

It's possible they will keep their current downtown building and just move employees from the buildings they don't own.

So how long before we get concrete details and see actual renderings?

You are confusing financing & investing....w/ Real Estate. If Rainey builds short, he will be leaving money on the table ( real estate ). His neighbor, DEVON, is worth over $1B in value. Rainey's hands are being tied by the OG&E relationship, not the market. The only reason Rainey is building short, is due to his relationship w/ OG&E, and he needs their ( signature on a lease ) to finance the project. If he was able to float the note on his own, he would build a 40+ World Class A building. That is what the real estate ( $1B Neighborhood ) calling for.

Then, if he built his 40 +, then the next developer can justify another one across the street w/ 45 stories. In real estate, you don't want your neighbors lower value bringing yours down.

Also, when DEVON added 1M + sf of Class A, they increased the demand for the CBD, for more. Not less.

If that were true, developers from around the world would be lining up right now to build all this space for which there is infinite demand and infinite money to be made, and no one would hesitate to underwrite Rainey whatever amount of money he wanted because he would be guaranteed to fill it, and thus no risk in the underwriting.

Does OG&E own or lease their current building(s)?

So how long before we get concrete details and see actual renderings?

Steve tweeted today that Rainey Williams told the DDRC:
* 12 to 18 months (!) for final design work and determining OG&E's exact needs
* Start in mid-2015; 12-18 months construction

No way construction is less than 18 months; more like 24+. That means approximately a mid-2017 open date.

This is how the committee voted (3-2 AYE for demolition approval):

GiGi Faulkner, Vice-Chair AYE - broke tie
Ike Akinwande NAY
Connie Scothorn NAY
Richard Tanenbaum AYE
Charles Ainsworth AYE

Betsy Brunsteter, Chair Recused -- works for ADG who did the conceptual plan

not standing up for OGE but... B) regardless if they are a public utilities company or not, who are you to say they can't move to new offices?

It would certainly match the tea party platform. I think we have a few members of that group around Oklahoma.

Personally, I don't mind who is going to be the tenant. It's not OG&E's fault if we trade an icon for a mediocre development (note: at press time we still have little idea what kind of development this will be) while a large chunk of the core remains vacant or undeveloped. That'll just the result of community apathy mixing with indifferent wealth.

Steve tweeted today that Rainey Williams told the DDRC:
* 12 to 18 months (!) for final design work and determining OG&E's exact needs
* Start in mid-2015; 12-18 months construction

No way construction is less than 18 months; more like 24+. That means approximately a mid-2017 open date.

Why so long on the final design work?

If that were true, developers from around the world would be lining up right now to build all this space for which there is infinite demand and infinite money to be made, and no one would hesitate to underwrite Rainey whatever amount of money he wanted because he would be guaranteed to fill it, and thus no risk in the underwriting.

I will give you an example of Risk.... If you have a plane and you want to fly from NY to London, how much fuel would you want to make it safely to the destnation? The Lending community says you can make it on a 1/2 tank, the Architects tell you you can make it w/ cost +8 , ...what is the risk? ...The risk has to be shared, but you cant have less than 100%. If I'm lending Rainey, I want to ask him, what makes your building different from the others? ( that is the real risk equalizer )

Now, OKC is briddled w/ average & small thinking ( top to bottom ), that is what truly holds things back.

What does DEVON / SandRidge / Continental want in their new neighbors that have yet to build? ...something small or something extraordinary? ...that is what continues to drive a real estate market.

Why so long on the final design work?

12-18 months is not a unreasonable timetable to go from schematic design to the completion of construction documents, especially considering the scale of the project. Especially if the firm doing the design work does not specialize in high-rise construction.

EDIT: That is one reason obtaining the demolition permit now instead of just before construction makes sense. There is a significant outlay of money in design work ($5M-$10M) just to get the point of moving dirt. It would be unwise to spend that kind of money only to be denied when you a ready to start construction.

This is how the committee voted (3-2 AYE for demolition approval):

GiGi Faulkner, Vice-Chair AYE - broke tie
Ike Akinwande NAY
Connie Scothorn NAY
Richard Tanenbaum AYE
Charles Ainsworth AYE

Betsy Brunsteter, Chair Recused -- works for ADG who did the conceptual plan

Interesting that those guys have benefited from their own restoration projects (don't know the others). Obviously, they don't want to set a bad precedent if they go into a restoration project that ends up unfeasible and want to demolish. Despite their good works, they certainly are of the fox watching the hen house type breed that always seems to find their way onto these kinds of boards (not just in OKC).

Oh well... another one bites the dust. At least I am pretty sure that we don't have enough "splendor" left to be shamed by a fourth volume of pictures of destroyed structures.

12-18 months is not a unreasonable timetable to go from schematic design to the completion of construction documents, especially considering the scale of the project. Especially if the firm doing the design work does not specialize in high-rise construction.

Which is the case

Vernacular architecture has a universal appeal.

So does comfort food.

Should every restaurant serve fried chicken, mashed potatoes, and corn on the cob?

12-18 months is not a unreasonable timetable to go from schematic design to the completion of construction documents, especially considering the scale of the project. Especially if the firm doing the design work does not specialize in high-rise construction.

EDIT: That is one reason obtaining the demolition permit now instead of just before construction makes sense. There is a significant outlay of money in design work ($5M-$10M) just to get the point of moving dirt. It would be unwise to spend that kind of money only to be denied when you a ready to start construction.

That part about paying for the design work before demolition makes very good sense. Thanks for pointing that out.



Also, I've heard that ADG will not be the architects; they were just hired to do a conceptual plan. I'm sure they'll hire someone with more expertise with this scale of project.


One other point: OG&E has already done extensive programming (what they need) so that should aid the initial process.

Personally, I don't mind who is going to be the tenant. It's not OG&E's fault if we trade an icon for a mediocre development (note: at press time we still have little idea what kind of development this will be) while a large chunk of the core remains vacant or undeveloped. That'll just the result of community apathy mixing with indifferent wealth.

I don't care that it's OG&E either but it's absolutely their desire to be located on this property that is behind the demolition and they will have everything to say about the quality of the development.

Rainey Williams is effectively doing a build-to-suit for them, precisely so people will only see them as a tenant, not have blood on their hands, etc.

There is a significant outlay of money in design work ($5M-$10M) just to get the point of moving dirt.

Rainey said in the proceedings $2-4MM for final design. I'm used to 6-8% for design fees. They must be a ways into it.

This comes as absolutely no surprise to me.

Situations like this are painful reminders that our community places little value on architecture and the built environment. As a practitioner of architecture and fan of avant garde design, I take this as a personal affront to my profession. Quite frankly it makes me want to practice in a different city that is more appreciative of contemporary architecture.

As much as I admire Stage Center, I have made my peace with its demolition. In our demo-happy city, this is the inevitable end for less-than-perfect buildings that find themselves in the way of "progress" (re: Film Exchange Building). Our shared history as a city reflects our ignorance of the importance of the built environment and the value of our architectural heritage. In the present day there is a general consensus that the urban renewal demolition programs of the 60's and 70's were at least, misguided and at worst, crimes against architecture. However, in the face of such clear and recent history, we unhesitatingly plunge forward in our efforts to repeat it. We gleefully erase every trace of our built heritage for the sake of something new and shiny. Much like written history, buildings are tangible objects that represent the story of a community over time. I fear that without the guiding presence of the past, right or wrong, we will struggle to frame our future.

This comes as absolutely no surprise to me.

Situations like this are painful reminders that our community places little value on architecture and the built environment. As a practitioner of architecture and fan of avant garde design, I take this as a personal affront to my profession. Quite frankly it makes me want to practice in a different city that is more appreciative of contemporary architecture.

As much as I admire Stage Center, I have made my peace with its demolition. In our demo-happy city, this is the inevitable end for less-than-perfect buildings that find themselves in the way of "progress" (re: Film Exchange Building). Our shared history as a city reflects our ignorance of the importance of the built environment and the value of our architectural heritage. In the present day there is a general consensus that the urban renewal demolition programs of the 60's and 70's were at least, misguided and at worst, crimes against architecture. However, in the face of such clear and recent history, we unhesitatingly plunge forward in our efforts to repeat it. We gleefully erase every trace of our built heritage for the sake of something new and shiny. Much like written history, buildings are tangible objects that represent the story of a community over time. I fear that without the guiding presence of the past, right or wrong, we will struggle to frame our future.

Like. I see the SC as something designed in the motif of the Pei Plan. Am I wrong on that? It's interesting that something that we might have kept at least as a reminder of our flawed history is not being destroyed in the same pattern as our flawed history.

This comes as absolutely no surprise to me.

Situations like this are painful reminders that our community places little value on architecture and the built environment. As a practitioner of architecture and fan of avant garde design, I take this as a personal affront to my profession. Quite frankly it makes me want to practice in a different city that is more appreciative of contemporary architecture.

As much as I admire Stage Center, I have made my peace with its demolition. In our demo-happy city, this is the inevitable end for less-than-perfect buildings that find themselves in the way of "progress" (re: Film Exchange Building). Our shared history as a city reflects our ignorance of the importance of the built environment and the value of our architectural heritage. In the present day there is a general consensus that the urban renewal demolition programs of the 60's and 70's were at least, misguided and at worst, crimes against architecture. However, in the face of such clear and recent history, we unhesitatingly plunge forward in our efforts to repeat it. We gleefully erase every trace of our built heritage for the sake of something new and shiny. Much like written history, buildings are tangible objects that represent the story of a community over time. I fear that without the guiding presence of the past, right or wrong, we will struggle to frame our future.

I can completely understand why you feel this way.

But every single American city laid waste to blocks and blocks of urban fabric in the 50's, 60's and 70's and most of them really struggled afterwards. It's just that most of us don't know or care nearly as much about what happened pretty much everywhere else.

I know we all like to invoke the Pei Plan every time a building is demolished but I really don't think the city's past has anything to do with this, nor do I think OKC is unique in the way it handles these situations -- at least among somewhat similar U.S. cities.

There simply wasn't a good option here and in fact, if OKC wasn't doing so well downtown, nobody would have cared if Stage Center rotted another decade or two.


This building has been a failure almost since opening and it never found a rich and powerful white knight to save it. That's partly due to the fact it is polarizing to begin with; virtually everybody wanted the Skirvin saved, after all. But it's also because it was a mess and I'm not sure that there is anything that unique about OKC that conspired against it.


All this said with tremendous respect for you, Andrew, and your profession. And a fair amount of affection for the soon-to-be-demolished Stage Center.

This comes as absolutely no surprise to me.

Situations like this are painful reminders that our community places little value on architecture and the built environment. As a practitioner of architecture and fan of avant garde design, I take this as a personal affront to my profession. Quite frankly it makes me want to practice in a different city that is more appreciative of contemporary architecture.

As much as I admire Stage Center, I have made my peace with its demolition. In our demo-happy city, this is the inevitable end for less-than-perfect buildings that find themselves in the way of "progress" (re: Film Exchange Building). Our shared history as a city reflects our ignorance of the importance of the built environment and the value of our architectural heritage. In the present day there is a general consensus that the urban renewal demolition programs of the 60's and 70's were at least, misguided and at worst, crimes against architecture. However, in the face of such clear and recent history, we unhesitatingly plunge forward in our efforts to repeat it. We gleefully erase every trace of our built heritage for the sake of something new and shiny. Much like written history, buildings are tangible objects that represent the story of a community over time. I fear that without the guiding presence of the past, right or wrong, we will struggle to frame our future.

Meh, the buildings we destroyed in the 60s and 70s were beautiful works. This thing was shipping containers and elevated sidewalks.

I'm not trying to pile on but I'm actually OK with it being demolished. Like a prior poster said, it was a failure from the get-go. I actually went to an Opening Night performance there many years ago, and it was terrible. It reminded me of something that would have been designed/built by the Soviet Union in the 60's.
And I freely admit that I could be completely wrong, but is there ANYTHING actually historic about the Film Exchange building? From what I've read it was A film exchange, not THE film exchange, It was even the first one. So, why again should it NOT be torn down? Not just for the sake of tearing something down, but to make room for a wonderful space that will be a benefit to all of Oklahoma City?

Like. I see the SC as something designed in the motif of the Pei Plan. Am I wrong on that? It's interesting that something that we might have kept at least as a reminder of our flawed history is not being destroyed in the same pattern as our flawed history.

Hmm. That's possible but I see the failure of Stage Center partly due to the collapse of Downtown during that time to the more present rebirth, which was a long stretch of its lifetime. It was one of the few reasons to go downtown at all, especially in the evening, with it and the civic center pre-maps being about the only destinations. Perhaps it was both, a contributor and a casualty.

It may have thrived had it been built near a wealthy burb but still would have had to weather the '80s.

This comes as absolutely no surprise to me.

Situations like this are painful reminders that our community places little value on architecture and the built environment. As a practitioner of architecture and fan of avant garde design, I take this as a personal affront to my profession. Quite frankly it makes me want to practice in a different city that is more appreciative of contemporary architecture.

As much as I admire Stage Center, I have made my peace with its demolition. In our demo-happy city, this is the inevitable end for less-than-perfect buildings that find themselves in the way of "progress" (re: Film Exchange Building). Our shared history as a city reflects our ignorance of the importance of the built environment and the value of our architectural heritage. In the present day there is a general consensus that the urban renewal demolition programs of the 60's and 70's were at least, misguided and at worst, crimes against architecture. However, in the face of such clear and recent history, we unhesitatingly plunge forward in our efforts to repeat it. We gleefully erase every trace of our built heritage for the sake of something new and shiny. Much like written history, buildings are tangible objects that represent the story of a community over time. I fear that without the guiding presence of the past, right or wrong, we will struggle to frame our future.

Come to Cleveland or anywhere in the Northeast. You'll be appreciated. People here fought to save Edward Durell Stone which is garbage compared to Stage Center. And no oilies to speak of.

Step off, Slappy. We need him.

Architecture is art, and the beauty of it is often in the eye of the beholder, or society which interacts with it. It is an age old argument. If 85% of the population does not like the "architecture" of a certain building, than who is to say it's good architecture? A group of architects with an admiration of modern design? If the design does not move people and enhance the vernacular and social fabric of the "place" in which it is located, then is it truly great architecture or just a piece of art that some will admire, and some won't. The SC won an AIA Gold Medal because a group of architects thought it deserved it at the time. The Central OK AIA and Tulsa AIA rallied signatures to keep the SC, which is great. But, that does not mean ALL architects liked the SC and wanted to see it remain. I know several who were in favor of seeing it go for all the reasons mentioned numerous times already, but you tend not to hear from that side. Also, one can appreciate and like modern architecture, yet not care for the design of the SC.
Portland, Oregon is facing a similar battle on a Michael Graves building, Google it. The general public absolutely hate it and want it razed, while others say it's an iconic historical architectural landmark. Architecture and art will always have these types of arguments from time to time. There is no right or wrong answer, just opinion and preference.

This comes as absolutely no surprise to me.

Situations like this are painful reminders that our community places little value on architecture and the built environment. As a practitioner of architecture and fan of avant garde design, I take this as a personal affront to my profession. Quite frankly it makes me want to practice in a different city that is more appreciative of contemporary architecture.

As much as I admire Stage Center, I have made my peace with its demolition. In our demo-happy city, this is the inevitable end for less-than-perfect buildings that find themselves in the way of "progress" (re: Film Exchange Building). Our shared history as a city reflects our ignorance of the importance of the built environment and the value of our architectural heritage. In the present day there is a general consensus that the urban renewal demolition programs of the 60's and 70's were at least, misguided and at worst, crimes against architecture. However, in the face of such clear and recent history, we unhesitatingly plunge forward in our efforts to repeat it. We gleefully erase every trace of our built heritage for the sake of something new and shiny. Much like written history, buildings are tangible objects that represent the story of a community over time. I fear that without the guiding presence of the past, right or wrong, we will struggle to frame our future.

Great post. Any and every landmark in this city is endangered. History has repeated itself in this regard again and again.

Similarly, I'm absolutely bummed that ODOT is selling the right of way that could be used for rail transit to the highest bidder. This asset will never come back.

P
This comes as absolutely no surprise to me.

Situations like this are painful reminders that our community places little value on architecture and the built environment. As a practitioner of architecture and fan of avant garde design, I take this as a personal affront to my profession. Quite frankly it makes me want to practice in a different city that is more appreciative of contemporary architecture.
.

Hmmm. Rand Elliott seems to find a market here for contemporary.

I saw an interview with Rainey on the news tonight and he was still talking about building a "world class" building. He obviously is still planning to do something that we haven't seen yet. :)

http://kfor.com/2014/01/16/committee-approves-demolition-of-one-of-okcs-most-unique-buildings/

I saw an interview with Rainey on the news tonight and he was still talking about building a "world class" building. He obviously is still planning to do something that we haven't seen yet. :)

He needs to quit using that term unless what he's planning truly is world class & the conceptual drawings we see now are just a weak placeholder to blow us away when the final plans are released.

I saw an interview with Rainey on the news tonight and he was still talking about building a "world class" building. He obviously is still planning to do something that we haven't seen yet. :)

Or he reads this board and is trolling everyone on this thread. ;)

He needs to quit using that term unless what he's planning truly is world class & the conceptual drawings we see now are just a weak placeholder to blow us away when the final plans are released.

a bland placeholder, maybe he was using this service; PlaceholderURL.com | LoadingReadyRun Video Gallery | The Escapist (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/loadingreadyrun/7534-PlaceholderURL-com)

For better or worse, to be honest I don't see "for profit" public energy (OG&E, ONG, etc.) to survive the next 10-15 years. By necessity.
Their goals clash with worldwide sustainability .....go ahead and bookmark this post.

One of the funniest things I have ever read

Lol, if you guys are going to fall for the whole "world class" propaganda again then I hope you are ready to stop shaming yourselves.

He needs to quit using that term unless what he's planning truly is world class & the conceptual drawings we see now are just a weak placeholder to blow us away when the final plans are released.

Is he using a world class architect? Is he spending world class money? I think we have our answer. He's razing paradise to put up a parking lot, to paraphrase Joni Mitchell.

"World class" is a term that is thrown around too easily.

Devon Energy Center -- at $750 million -- is a world class facility. The budget for this project is $100 million.

Hmmm. Rand Elliott seems to find a market here for contemporary.

Mostly, Rand found a patron in Aubrey McClendon. And in the case of the river (perhaps his most public work these days), set a modern standard that was so strong with initial structures that it would have been jarring and confusing to deviate from that appearance on subsequent structures, even those not paid for by CHK. So the Boathouse Foundation trusted him to oversee the vision for the entire district.

If Aubrey had been in love with Stage Center (and didn't mind preserving a building on Larry Nichols' front porch), SC would be a showpiece and would have found a use. If 20 years ago you would have suggested the river would have the venues, the users and the purpose it now has, you would have been laughed out of town. It took the VISION of Mike Knopp, and the SUPPORT of Aubrey McClendon (and others, eventually). Eventually the public and the users followed.

By the way, Rand has experienced the same frustrations in this market as CuatrodeMayo expresses above. He has been disheartened through the years by OKC's general lack of concern for architecture. I know this because I've discussed it with him over lunch and over beers. OKC can feel like a lonely outpost for architects, and especially did when he first hung his shingle.

He could have gone to NYC, or Chicago, or London, or anywhere, but chose to stay home and try to change the culture. For years he subsisted on projects that weren't nearly as sexy as the things his firm works on today. And by sheer will he forced his way onto the scene. And by the way has plenty of other great projects outside of the Aubrey-connected ones.

Today he is helping to slowly change the attitudes we have here about buildings. We need more people like him (and there are a number on the scene now). Hopefully they can eventually help turn the tide, but it is surely discouraging to spend an entire career in a place where you feel like for the most part you're just beating your head against the proverbial wall.

I can't begrudge a guy for venting about that.