Maybe he meant worldly and classy?

[QUOTE=Pete;734448]"World class" is a term that is thrown around too easily.

So true. World class is all a matter of opinion and perspective, everyone's definition is different. Devon spared no expense on the high quality of materials they used throughout, not to mention the attention to detail. That's a result of the client's overall vision, goals and objectives for the project, the ability and creativity of the architect to meet or exceed those goals, and the contractor to execute the plan. Time will tell if Pete Delaney and Rainey have the same aspirations. I doubt they will be able to attain the same level as Devon, but, that's not to say it still can't be nicely done. Make no mistake though, it will all start with Pete Delaney.

^

Similarly, the old Kerr McGee building found a savior in Tom Ward who had talked about how much he admired the architecture and how they wanted to preserve and enhance it.

Through his efforts, they spent millions to renovate and update that structure and it's pretty darn stunning on the inside now.

That tower isn't nearly as polarizing as Stage Center but there are lots of people who don't like it much. It just took the right rich man with a vision to not only bring it back to life, but have it greatly enhanced.


Stage Center simply never found it's guardian angel, and it's been around for almost 50 years.

Losing it has much more to do with that fact than being indicative of OKC being some sort of architectural, cultural and historical wasteland.

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. :)

Committee approves demolition of one of OKC?s most unique buildings | KFOR.com (http://kfor.com/2014/01/16/committee-approves-demolition-of-one-of-okcs-most-unique-buildings/)

It should be. I have zero issue w/ an utility company ( OG&E ) leasing this space and wanting a sole-source for occupancy. If OG&E can negotiate a competitve rate then I don't care what the building looks like. I would rather Rainey build a 40+ world class and have OG&E in there and then begin to fill it. That would be a great deal for both parties. If he builds short / to OG&E's needs today, then Rainey is the one, NOT getting a good deal. ( Yes, it will help him on the Personal Financials, but he would be leaving $MMM's on the table for this single piece of property).

I'm not saying Rainey won't be better off when this is a 15 story building and OG&E is a long-term leasee. ....If Rainey builds a World Class property & the next one across the street does as well, then both developers will be much better off $MMM, and the greater surplus can be re-invested again on the next transaction down the road / street, or reinvest in the C2S areas. ...Real Estate Financial Momentum, it allows them to keep going on the next project and the lenders begin to relax as well.

a lonely outpost

I often think "tent city on the prairie." Not really in a derogatory way. We're still a young city, comparatively, with much major change over a short time and little history as compared to many great old cities.

Here's the plan:

Rainey will build the east tower to OG&E's specifications - that's his deal with them. It can't be "world class" because - as a regulated, public utility - OG&E can't be in the position of arguing for a rate increase while occupying a new, elaborate office tower.

The west parcel will be sold as a development site to another group which may/may not include Rainey (odds favor his involvement, but not being the lead developer), and will most likely consist of spec space unless another large company moves to or within downtown (let the speculation begin on this as another "Mystery Tower"). It would make sense for this to be anchored by a large user or two, with expansion space leased to smaller companies until it is needed. When sold this parcel will command a high price because Rainey won the right to develop the property, it will offer parking which is in short supply downtown, and it will be between two new buildings (OG&E & John Rex Elementary).

The garage will simply generate a solid income stream from occupants of both buildings.

This is classic, synergistic development. Buy a parcel, construct a building for a gilt-edge tenant and lease it to them, sell another parcel to recoup your initial investment, and build parking on the last parcel to create a long-term, lucrative income stream.

^

Similarly, the old Kerr McGee building found a savior in Tom Ward who had talked about how much he admired the architecture and how they wanted to preserve and enhance it.

Through his efforts, they spent millions to renovate and update that structure and it's pretty darn stunning on the inside now.

That tower isn't nearly as polarizing as Stage Center but there are lots of people who don't like it much. It just took the right rich man with a vision to not only bring it back to life, but have it greatly enhanced.


Stage Center simply never found it's guardian angel, and it's been around for almost 50 years.

Losing it has much more to do with that fact than being indicative of OKC being some sort of architectural, cultural and historical wasteland.

Perhaps not, but I can point to dozens if not hundreds of OTHER demolitions that ARE indicative, including some in the very SR project that you cite.

Listen, I don't really want to post about SC any more. I know that over the past few days I've been one of the high-volume posters on that topic, but it was because it was topical, and because I wanted to vent my frustrations. I accepted long ago that it was coming down, and these days I'm pretty sanguine about it. At the end of the day, the demolition had very little to do with RW and is not his "fault." The community as a whole made a passive decision over the past several decades that the structure was just not important to it, and the demolition is just the logical conclusion.

This thread is about the tower that will replace it, and I am happy to focus on it from here on out. Though it's going to be a huge bummer to watch SC come down, I look forward to seeing that area activated and to see our skyline change yet again. I wish Rainey Williams luck with his development, and truly hope the finished product is "world class." We could definitely use more "world class" here.

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.

Some people consider Stage Center to be world class and the architect himself described it "cheap materials and cheap design". I just saying the is little to no correlation between price and 'world class'. I know some people love Devon Tower and consider it world class but it is all glass which is the cheapest building material you can use. Yes is has marble inside, but so does my bathroom.

Here's the plan:

Rainey will build the east tower to OG&E's specifications - that's his deal with them. It can't be "world class" because - as a regulated, public utility - OG&E can't be in the position of arguing for a rate increase while occupying a new, elaborate office tower.
The west parcel will be sold as a development site to another group which may/may not include Rainey (odds favor his involvement, but not being the lead developer), and will most likely consist of spec space unless another large company moves to or within downtown (let the speculation begin on this as another "Mystery Tower"). It would make sense for this to be anchored by a large user or two, with expansion space leased to smaller companies until it is needed. When sold this parcel will command a high price because Rainey won the right to develop the property, it will offer parking which is in short supply downtown, and it will be between two new buildings (OG&E & John Rex Elementary).

The garage will simply generate a solid income stream from occupants of both buildings.

This is classic, synergistic development. Buy a parcel, construct a building for a gilt-edge tenant and lease it to them, sell another parcel to recoup your initial investment, and build parking on the last parcel to create a long-term, lucrative income stream.

GSA has many of our government entities in many expensive buildings. IF OG&E has a competitive rate, then I am 100% ok with that....if that contract is competitive, then do it. ( ex. I would rather OG&E be in a new building at $15.00 s/f., then in a different buiilding down the street @ $20.00 sq/ft ...just for image only. )

World class has to do with functionality, artistic design, sustainability, use of materials, etc., etc. It does not automatically correlate to cost. There can be world class small projects and world class large ones...size and budget doesn't matter. World class doesn't mean oddest, or most expensive, or most narrowly focused, etc., etc. This CAN be world class, but has to be more than lip service. We can hope.

Who really thinks the hot-shot architect at the new firm doing the final design is going to take the plans handed to him by ADG and say, "oh, okay, I'll just do this, it'll be easier" rather than trying to make his own mark on this important project since it'll be his name on it? The arrangement of things may be the same in terms of what structures are located where, but I'll be very surprised (and of course disappointed in the new architect for being lazy) if the end product looks the same.

Can any of the architects on this board like Cuatro chime in on this? If it was you receiving the ADG design, how would you proceed? In lock-step with the master plan or would you make your mark?

Cuatro, In her book Power Failure, Enron collapse authored by the whistle blower Sharon Watkins describes this part of the country. While she’s describing Houston, I think the oil heritage that both Houston and OKC share demonstrate how true this is for our part of the country. Her description is that since we don’t really have many building that are over 100 years old, much less 200 or more, we prefer to have new. While 50 year old buildings could eventually be 100 year old buildings, we don’t want to wait another 50 years to have a treasure. So instead we tear them down and build a new one in its place. When compared to New England, there are so many more structures there that are very old, and preservation is what most everyone would want, that’s what they do. Personally, I struggle with the loss of stage center for multiple reasons. I think is a cool qwerky building that I like to take visitors to see. But, I feel it’s difficult for me to think I have the right to tell Mr. Williams what to do with his building just because I hold it in some special regard or significance. Thanks for your contributions as I always enjoy reading what you have to say or seeing your ideas for our city. Great job!

Some people consider Stage Center to be world class and the architect himself described it "cheap materials and cheap design". I just saying the is little to no correlation between price and 'world class'. I know some people love Devon Tower and consider it world class but it is all glass which is the cheapest building material you can use. Yes is has marble inside, but so does my bathroom.

I know you don't like all-glass buildings. Be honest and just say you don't like it. There is no need to make up facts that support your position. A unitized curtainwall system, especially the high-end system on Devon, is one of the most expensive building envelopes per SF you can buy. There are exotic cladding systems that are more expensive than glass, but when compared to brick, and stone, glazing systems usually cost much more per SF.

In her book Power Failure, Enron collapse authored by the whistle blower Sharon Watkins describes this part of the country. While she’s describing Houston, I think the oil heritage that both Houston and OKC share demonstrate how true this is for our part of the country. Her description is that since we don’t really have many building that are over 100 years old, much less 200 or more, we prefer to have new. While 50 year old buildings could eventually be 100 year old buildings, we don’t want to wait another 50 years to have a treasure. So instead we tear them down and build a new one in its place.

I don't think I agree with that summation totally. Europe for example does have it share of old buildings, but a lot of what people love the most really isn't that old. The Eiffel Tower for example is the same age as OKC. The Pompidou Center (which I personally don't like) opened in 1977. If it has any appeal to me at all it's that it is unique from its surrounding which have the classic Paris facades (also from the 1890's). Stage Center simply didn't have that because there are no common surroundings from which to distinguish itself from - and there in lies the real problem for place like OKC and Houston; there is no common urban fabric of sameness from which to contrast or distinguish anything. Maybe that is why every architect feels the need to create the next outlandish structure because they are designing in a sea of chaos. They have to be louder, more extreme, more radical - or they simply don't get noticed, and then when you get something like Stage Center there is nothing special about it because it has been out done umpteen times over the years. It is like wondering why John Denver isn't still at the top of Country Music charts. In the '70s he was controversial, edgy, and won awards too, but the country music scene moved on and now you can't find a John Denver album unless you go to a used music store.

It is like playing a big game of "Which of these things is not like the others". For the game to even makes sense 3 of the 4 items have to be alike, which makes the 4th item unique and different, but in the OKC version of the game there are no two things alike so everything is different. That game is much less fun and if some item drops off - who cares - we still have other unique items. Maybe if there wasn't an illuminated glass tube right next door Stage Center would have seemed more unique to more people, or even a decorative pedestrian bridge over I-40, or elaborate boathouse, or an 850' LED building, or giant steel canopy, or.....

Perhaps not, but I can point to dozens if not hundreds of OTHER demolitions that ARE indicative, including some in the very SR project that you cite.

Listen, I don't really want to post about SC any more. I know that over the past few days I've been one of the high-volume posters on that topic, but it was because it was topical, and because I wanted to vent my frustrations. I accepted long ago that it was coming down, and these days I'm pretty sanguine about it. At the end of the day, the demolition had very little to do with RW and is not his "fault." The community as a whole made a passive decision over the past several decades that the structure was just not important to it, and the demolition is just the logical conclusion.

This thread is about the tower that will replace it, and I am happy to focus on it from here on out. Though it's going to be a huge bummer to watch SC come down, I look forward to seeing that area activated and to see our skyline change yet again. I wish Rainey Williams luck with his development, and truly hope the finished product is "world class." We could definitely use more "world class" here.

How though? People have tried to make it work and it doesn't. How is that a passive dismissal of Stage Center? You take the fact that it was used by some with subsidies and say it could work. Others tried to make it work and it wasn't sustainable. That's a problem and will continue to be one 50 years from now. It wasn't working.

I know you don't like all-glass buildings. Be honest and just say you don't like it. There is no need to make up facts that support your position. A unitized curtainwall system, especially the high-end system on Devon, is one of the most expensive building envelopes per SF you can buy. There are exotic cladding systems that are more expensive than glass, but when compared to brick, and stone, glazing systems usually cost much more per SF.

And Devon's exterior glass has an incredible R-value, surpassing brick or stone outside, with insulation and sheetrock inside, while providing a view and light.

And Devon's exterior glass has an incredible R-value, surpassing brick or stone outside, with insulation and sheetrock inside, while providing a view and light.

They did it right!

How though? People have tried to make it work and it doesn't. How is that a passive dismissal of Stage Center? You take the fact that it was used by some with subsidies and say it could work. Others tried to make it work and it wasn't sustainable. That's a problem and will continue to be one 50 years from now. It wasn't working.

I really want to stop posting here about SC and move on to the topic at hand. Would be willing to discuss in a PM if you would like, but at this point in this thread would prefer to discuss the future rather than the past.

It is like wondering why John Denver isn't still at the top of Country Music charts. In the '70s he was controversial, edgy, and won awards too, but the country music scene moved on and now you can't find a John Denver album unless you go to a used music store.

You mean, aside from the fact he's dead?



It is like playing a big game of "Which of these things is not like the others". For the game to even makes sense 3 of the 4 items have to be alike, which makes the 4th item unique and different, but in the OKC version of the game there are no two things alike so everything is different. That game is much less fun and if some item drops off - who cares - we still have other unique items. Maybe if there wasn't an illuminated glass tube right next door Stage Center would have seemed more unique to more people, or even a decorative pedestrian bridge over I-40, or elaborate boathouse, or an 850' LED building, or giant steel canopy, or.....

But all the time here I see people griping about how everything in the OKC skyline is just the same, repetitive office boxes all over the place. But now we're suggesting OKC's landscape is too diverse for SC to have been sufficiently unique to gain a following?

Moreover, if Stage Center never got its "guardian angel" (as Pete so poetically and aptly put it) in 50 years, the Devon tower could hardly have played that significant a factor in its demise. Everyone saw its uniqueness, but I think even more people saw its lack of practicality - and that - more than anything - was its eventual undoing.

I really want to stop posting here about SC and move on to the topic at hand. Would be willing to discuss in a PM if you would like, but at this point in this thread would prefer to discuss the future rather than the past.

Works for me.

It was suggested on Steve's chat today that OG&E may have plans to buy this development from Rainey Williams when it is complete.

Don't be surprised if that happens; they've wanted to be an owner all along.

^

Similarly, the old Kerr McGee building found a savior in Tom Ward who had talked about how much he admired the architecture and how they wanted to preserve and enhance it.

Through his efforts, they spent millions to renovate and update that structure and it's pretty darn stunning on the inside now.



I'm one who doesn't like it much. It's just nothing special to me and it is the building that seems to be in every city. However, it does represent an architectural movement and was a significant part of a mini tower boom in the early 70s for OKC. If it was in trouble, it would be worth efforts to save, imo, even though I don't like it.


That tower isn't nearly as polarizing as Stage Center but there are lots of people who don't like it much. It just took the right rich man with a vision to not only bring it back to life, but have it greatly enhanced.

Stage Center simply never found it's guardian angel, and it's been around for almost 50 years.

Losing it has much more to do with that fact than being indicative of OKC being some sort of architectural, cultural and historical wasteland.

It's certainly both. But I do think the community's cultural atmosphere is a big part as to why it couldn't find an angel. It was certainly in a hole (literally and figuratively), but it would not have set any records for cost of restoration. But it would have been a restoration that would have actually pissed people off even if no public money or tax breaks were used. That is the culture.

However, I am not calling the city a wasteland. There is a significant part of the population that enjoys the arts, both mainstream and innovative, but outside of the classic arts, there is not a whole lot of money thrown behind it. That's just how it is and is again a main reason why Stage Center's long term viability was doomed from the beginning.

And, for me, a lot of this was as much about context as it was specifically about Stage Center. Often times in discussions here people will say things like "we're not {insert top 10 cultural city} and never will be". IMO, that is why trying to save the few historical oddities we have left is even more important. We're not a city to which innovative designers and developers are going to flock (I think I just heard many locals release a sigh of relief at that). We essentially have zero architectural identity and, at best, we move laterally on that front. Sure, every city in every country around the world has torn down historic or architecturally interesting buildings and sometimes those demolitions have coincided with economic conditions that left the remaining site undeveloped for years. But the big difference in Oklahoma City, is that we have relatively been one of the most demo happy cities over the years and still have not replaced a significant portion of what we've torn down. There is enough undeveloped land downtown to fulfill projected demand for at least the next generation. Yet, the only way we can get a new building is by tearing another one down? Yes, this is a good location, but it's not the only good location. To me, it's just Oklahoma City doing what it does best. Removing potential assets or ignoring them completely during times of development. At this point, I'm confused when anything downtown gets torn down regardless of historical or architectural significance. Demolition in downtown OKC is just a bizarre concept across the board.

I moved the discussion about urban renewal in OKC as compared to other cities to it's own thread:

http://www.okctalk.com/general-real-estate-topics/36383-urban-renewal-okc-vs-other-cities.html

You know what could have been a win/win here...

OCURA could have put out an RFP for the property just south of the Stage Center site (which they largely own) and offered that site for free or a big discount if the winning party renovated and maintained the Stage Center.

The new owners could then use the Stage Center for meetings and such, and also lease it out for community arts groups and events.

After all, it seems the trend is for the bigger corporations to have a large auditorium (Devon, Chesapeake, SandRidge, etc.) and the OG&E conceptual plan calls for a conference center.


I have the feeling that the local power brokers just didn't feel like Stage Center was worth saving, otherwise this sort of plan could have easily worked.

You have to think that Larry Nichols didn't care about SC because all the ambitious Project 180 plans -- including the massive overhaul to the immediately adjacent Myriad Gardens -- completely ignored it.

And, BTW, Nichols is the Chairman of OCURA.

Stage Center has always been hated by the chamber junta who resent that NYC money came in and overpowered them.

Chamber Junta. Maybe new-urbanista rebels. We have a real warfare going on here. LOL.

Stage Center has always been hated by the chamber junta who resent that NYC money came in and overpowered them.

I can't blame them.

I can't blame them.

Neither do a great many others.

Chamber Junta. Maybe new-urbanista rebels. We have a real warfare going on here. LOL.

Chamber junta is an expression that's been in use for a few years in the local political arena

I just think the Stage Center was polarizing. Some people loved it, some hated it. There seemed to be very few opinions in between. I don't think it had anything to do with some chamber junta. Unfortunately, there didn't seem to be anyone with pots of money who loved it.

Some of you guys act like Stage Center raped your mom.

This has got to be the most polarizing building of all time -- or very close.

This has got to be the most polarizing building of all time -- or very close.

The Thomas Kinkade of architecture. I've heard art dealers talk on TV about his works being the most polarizing paintings in America. Some well-known critics love his art and some absolutely hate it. His personal foibles just add to it I'm sure.

Well, I certainly hate Thomas Kinkade's paintings so maybe the Kincade lovers hate the Stage Center. My personal art collection is definitely eclectic, but there are no Kinkades in it, nor anything else that resembles his stuff.

The Thomas Kinkade of architecture. ...

Suddenly, I'm not just ok with the razing of SC. I'm down right overjoyed. :)
SC = TK. Best laugh of my week. Thanks sooooo much for that.

Chamber junta is an expression that's been in use for a few years in the local political arena


Some of you guys act like Stage Center raped your mom.

LOL, yep. Sounds like somebody learned a new big word in academia. Today's word kids is "junta".

Suddenly, I'm not just ok with the razing of SC. I'm down right overjoyed. :)
SC = TK. Best laugh of my week. Thanks sooooo much for that.

I'm going to argue that it's the anti-Kinkade.

LOL, yep. Sounds like somebody learned a new big word in academia. Today's word kids is "junta".

Metro - if junta is a big word for you, you should just stick to your expressions of 140 characters or less.

Btw hoyasooner was speaking to the vehement anti-Stage Center crowd, which you know, is the topic at hand.

The Thomas Kinkade of architecture. I've heard art dealers talk on TV about his works being the most polarizing paintings in America. Some well-known critics love his art and some absolutely hate it. His personal foibles just add to it I'm sure.

That's a difference of sophistication, not understanding. The difference of sophistication w Stage Center's polarization is the reverse of the Thomas Kinkade crap.

I don't want to get dragged back into this discussion, but I would argue that Warhol is a better comparison. Cozy subdivisions are the Thomas Kinkade of architecture.

Can we get back to talking about the tower?

I don't want to get dragged back into this discussion, but I would argue that Warhol is a better comparison. Cozy subdivisions are the Thomas Kinkade of architecture.I'll agree with that. It's our very own Campbell Soup Can portrait...and about as useful or relevant!

But as you said, back to the topic of this thread...

This has got to be the most polarizing building of all time -- or very close.

I would nominate the Pompidou Center.

Chamber junta is an expression that's been in use for a few years in the local political arena

Oh well, then that doesn't make it decisive. Lol. If opposition groups say it, it must be appropriate. Freedom fighters...terrorists. Sometimes it is perspective.

I don't want to get dragged back into this discussion, but I would argue that Warhol is a better comparison. Cozy subdivisions are the Thomas Kinkade of architecture.

Can we get back to talking about the tower?

SC is more like Dali.

Cubism. Pablo Picasso.

I would say Dali is more like it.

Cubism. Pablo Picasso.

That's what I was thinking.

Some posters could argue Dadasim...

6228

I wonder if this might have been the inspiration

More in common with the abstract expressionists than the surrealists (or dadists).

Here's a few that come to my mind when I think of the building, all his contemporaries.

Adolph Gottlieb
Hans Hofmann
David Smith
Mark di Suvero
Alexander Calder

There's some similar use of color in some of those above, but yeah, I have to give a nod to the pop art color of the time, (Warhol and Lichtenstein) though not the same concept.

My dad just called it a gerbil cage lol...

6228

I wonder if this might have been the inspiration

Looks like award winning work right there.

You know what could have been a win/win here...

OCURA could have put out an RFP for the property just south of the Stage Center site (which they largely own) and offered that site for free or a big discount if the winning party renovated and maintained the Stage Center.

The new owners could then use the Stage Center for meetings and such, and also lease it out for community arts groups and events.

Seems logical. But I think you may spend more time looking at downtown with a "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" perspective than the people actually controlling its development do.


This has got to be the most polarizing building of all time -- or very close.

And we can't have any of that here now can we? ; )

Can we get back to talking about the tower?

I'm sure once we see the renderings of a world class development, the discussion will turn to that. Right now, though, it's still more mystery than tower...

You know, the more I think about this the more I realize that no one with any real influence in OKC -- government or business -- seemed to care about this building.

Contrast Stage Center to the Skirvin, where the City moved heaven and earth to make the renovation happen. The City of OKC bought it outright then marshaled all types of money, resources and energy to find a developer and operator... And then gave everyone sweetheart deals. It proved to be the right thing to do and everyone involved has benefited greatly, including the broader community.

Yet, the City and the private sector just let the Stage Center flounder and rot almost since inception.


It's not only that SC didn't find a rich guardian angel, the City itself pretty much turned it's back on it.

If anyone of influence in local government had a passion for this building, it certainly could have been renovated and saved.

In my experience I was always one of a very small minority that really liked the Mummer's building. And even I thought the architect was nearly guilty of incompetence for the terrible flaws in the structure. And I never did see a way to rehabilitate the thing into something useful that would not continue being an absolute money pit.

The Biltmore was a little like that except there were a lot more people who liked it.

The Skirvin isn't that way at all. It is widely loved. There are generations of people who have celebrated one thing or another there. It is as much symbol and treasured memory as it is a hotel.

You know, the more I think about this the more I realize that no one with any real influence in OKC -- government or business -- seemed to care about this building.

Contrast Stage Center to the Skirvin, where the City moved heaven and earth to make the renovation happen. The City of OKC bought it outright then marshaled all types of money, resources and energy to find a developer and operator... And then gave everyone sweetheart deals. It proved to be the right thing to do and everyone involved has benefited greatly, including the broader community.

Yet, the City and the private sector just let the Stage Center flounder and rot almost since inception.


It's not only that SC didn't find a rich guardian angel, the City itself pretty much turned it's back on it.

If anyone of influence in local government had a passion for this building, it certainly could have been renovated and saved.

Into what, though? The Skirvin's bones were always usable, at least in some theoretical way, even in its darkest days when refurbs and rehabs seemed the stuff of dreams. And the Skirvin was integrated into the City's consciousness as an element of the important things that went on in the city's history. It was not an end unto itself; it became worth preserving by virtue of its presence in and participation during the emergent history of OKC as it was being written. The SC's architectural uniqueness sentenced it to niche relevance, and as a result the place never resonated with the city's broader population.

I think there are plenty of people in the arthouse/business crowd who really wanted to save it, but those ugly realities of that niche utility just became too much to overcome. I'm willing to bet a few pennies that numerous folks with sufficiently deep pockets were quietly approached on the QT and asked to save the SC, but just as quietly (and even apologetically) declined because - at some point - the desire to rehab could never be reconciled with a practical way to get it done.

I didn't mean to imply I thought it should have been saved, as I still have very mixed feelings.

Just thought it was interesting that no one in City leadership lifted a finger. Says a lot that they didn't.

You know, the more I think about this the more I realize that no one with any real influence in OKC -- government or business -- seemed to care about this building.

Contrast Stage Center to the Skirvin, where the City moved heaven and earth to make the renovation happen. The City of OKC bought it outright then marshaled all types of money, resources and energy to find a developer and operator... And then gave everyone sweetheart deals. It proved to be the right thing to do and everyone involved has benefited greatly, including the broader community.

Yet, the City and the private sector just let the Stage Center flounder and rot almost since inception.


It's not only that SC didn't find a rich guardian angel, the City itself pretty much turned it's back on it.

If anyone of influence in local government had a passion for this building, it certainly could have been renovated and saved.

This is true. And it would really have to be about passion and a real love for all things unique to OKC. It was much easier to sell the skirvin renovation, and the headaches that went along with it, because the potential economic impact was much more tangible. Stage Center's impact is more along the lines of "it makes us more interesting, and some people like interesting, and so maybe it shows that we're not the staid homogenized city with no individuality that people think we are and, then, maybe we will see some economic benefit from expanding the demographic to which we can market ourselves...".

There aren't many people with millions of dollars to spend on development that would be interested in that argument, and I don't think any of them are in Oklahoma City.

That being said, there are a lot of small scale developments outside of the CBD that are helping make the city more interesting by embracing and cultivating different cultural aspects of the city. It would be nice to have more of that in the very center of the city, but I guess that's just a tough sell and it's probably time to realize that history and uniqueness of style are not going to be allowed to get in the way of any new development between about 4th and the river.

Here's an interesting thought... Among the OKC rich and powerful, I don't think any of them are preservationists.

Tom Ward. Aubrey McClendon and now Pete Delaney and Rainey Williams have certainly demonstrated they are the polar opposite. The Gaylords left downtown and built a suburban campus. David Green has shown zero interest in downtown (understandable given Hobby Lobby's needs) and it's too soon to tell about Harold Hamm, but I believe he was very interested in Stage Center at one time, and not to preserve it. Bill Cameron bought the old OPUBCO campus, Jeff Records fled downtown for I-44 and Broadway.

And if several of the buildings come down as expected on the Preftakes block, you can put Larry Nichols in that category as well. Although he has pumped millions into the Colcord.

Bob Howard is a notable exception.

The remainder of the restoration work has been done by the smaller local developer, not the big movers and shakers.