I guess I'm one of the few who don't subscribe to the JR.

Pretty sure that you're one of the many.

Sign up for a news site. Are they high?

Preservanists make me sick, they do nothing when a building sits there for years dilapidated and neglected and say and do nothing, and a soon as somebody wants to demolish it to make way for a new development they cry, whatever! :please:

Actually there have been multiple people who have tried very hard over the years to save the Stage Center. They weren't lucky enough to obtain the city's help or that of someone with deep pockets.

I second Lisa Chronister's thoughts in post #228. We really need to see to it Stage Center isn't merely demolished. Its components would make a terrific homage to modern design as a collective in a city park like the Central Park or as suggested in the story, as separate pieces. Ideally, the new tower or even neighboring Rex Elementary could even incorporate sections into their building or landscape designs. It's better than this tremendous concept being reduced to refuse.

<deleted>

Rainey's dad was G. Rainey Williams, MD, and the OU Physicians building at OUMC is named for him. Rainey's mom is Martha Vose Williams, sister of Chuck Vose, Jr., daughter of Chuck, Sr.

DOCTOR Rainey Williams and DEVELOPER Rainey Williams are father and son, not grandfather and grandson.

And to the poster from earlier tonight, it's Mr. WILLIAMS, not Mr. RAINEY. I stopped reading your post when it became apparent you didn't even know the developer's name.

Tower news overshadowed by Stage Center debate | News OK (http://newsok.com/tower-news-overshadowed-by-stage-center-debate/article/3866548)

I think what Boulder means is that though most of the demolishion for the Pei Plan took place, most of what was promised in its place was never built. It ended up being a lose-lose situation and is largely responsible for many of OKC's lingering image problems today.
NYC urban development methods don't seem to work when cheap prairie land is ripe for development at a fraction of the cost. The assumption the Pei Plan was working under was that development pace would be the same, one of the problems of hiring consultants who don't understand the development environment they are working in. Kind of like having the landscape design for an airport in New Orleans done by a landscape architect on the Western Slope......



Preservanists make me sick, they do nothing when a building sits there for years dilapidated and neglected and say and do nothing, and a soon as somebody wants to demolish it to make way for a new development they cry, whatever! :please:
Much effort has been made to save it but none of the attempts were viable. I hate to see it go but am pretty much at the point that it was inevitable that the property was going to be redeveloped.

I got my people confused. Rainey Williams is undoubtedly the grandson of G.Rainey Williams, chairman of the surgery department at OUHSC back in the day. One of his grandsons of the same name went to Casady with my son, who is 23, which is how I got confused. Surely this is an uncle.

That would be his son, by the same name.

I don't think people really understand the new company. I keep seeing people think that Centerpoint and Enogex are merging. That's actually humorous as Centerpoint is a HUGE Fortune 500 company. The new company has nothing to do with Centerpoint itself, as it has nothing to do with OG&E itself. Enogex (an OG&E company) will be part a new MLP with a new division of Centerpoint Energy.

All people are thinking about is the tower, which I understand, but they have the actual business entities all confused.

Centerpoint Energy already has a midstream division, same as Enogex is for OG&E... our family sells NG from a couple of wells to them out in Caddo and Custer counties. Happens we also sell to Enogex from a Canadian county well. It's a good fit for the two.

Tower news overshadowed by Stage Center debate | News OK (http://newsok.com/tower-news-overshadowed-by-stage-center-debate/article/3866548)

Question is, will they allow it to be demolished?

The outcry to save the Stage Center is tremendous. My question is why wasn't there such an effort before possible demolition was announced? I can definitely see the perspective of the preservationists. In the 1970s, I am sure they thought Criterion Theater was outdated and an eyesore but today most OKCitians wish it was still standing and if it was here today, it would likely be one of the city's greatest assets. It needs to be evaluated if the Stage Center is the same kind of structure and what should be done with it. Why wouldn't it be possible to instead of demolish it, dismantle it?

I've always wondered, if it could be saved, why the Stage Center couldn't become the live music venue OKC has been needing.

Protests

http://twitter.com/joewertz/status/360932368795717632/photo/1

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Downtown%20OKC/null-3.jpg

Is the protest the two people standing on the lawn?

Is the protest the two people standing on the lawn?Naaaaa, there are a few ants on the ground if you look closely and I believe a fly is in the vicinity.

Naaaaa, there are a few ants on the ground if you look closely and I believe a fly is in the vicinity.

Ohhh, my bad. I see it now. Looks like they had a pretty good showing. Them ants & that fly are real difference makers. :)

Ohhh, my bad. I see it now. Looks like they had a pretty good showing. Them ants & that fly are real difference makers. :)I'm telling ya man, don't mess with the ants lol ;)

One second you're having a nice picnic next to your Phantom and the BOOOOOM it's gone

Naaaaa, there are a few ants on the ground if you look closely and I believe a fly is in the vicinity.

Actually those insects are currently eating away at the Stage Center. They could care less about saving an iconic landmark, its all a meal to them.

Actually those insects are currently eating away at the Stage Center. They could care less about saving an iconic landmark, its all a meal to them.

Uh oh. This is getting dramatic.

Question is, will they allow it to be demolished?

The outcry to save the Stage Center is tremendous. My question is why wasn't there such an effort before possible demolition was announced? I can definitely see the perspective of the preservationists. In the 1970s, I am sure they thought Criterion Theater was outdated and an eyesore but today most OKCitians wish it was still standing and if it was here today, it would likely be one of the city's greatest assets. It needs to be evaluated if the Stage Center is the same kind of structure and what should be done with it. Why wouldn't it be possible to instead of demolish it, dismantle it?

I've always wondered, if it could be saved, why the Stage Center couldn't become the live music venue OKC has been needing.

Good question. I suspect it has to do with the fact that until it became a real deal, as it did yesterday, the people with strong emotional feelings about this could go on about their lives. There was a serious effort by local architects to save it, but they were NOT aided by Oklahoma City Community Foundation. Once this sale was announced, suddenly these folks' passions were stirred, and they are significant.

I'm actually a bit shocked to find out some of the names of the people at OCCF who were willing to sell out our city's most renowned architectural achievement. Some of these people are serious arts and cultural stakeholders.

I was at H&8th tonight (which was utterly smashing, btw), and it was the talk of the town. I think this is going to be a very big deal.

Oklahoma City has a terrible record of preserving its iconic buildings. It's hard to imagine what was going through the mind of the people at OCCF when they voted to sell this. We have acres upon acres of empty and underutilized lots on which we could place a skyscraper. That they chose this location is quite stunning -- and if memory serves correctly, Larry Nichols was an advocate of building on this site. It's going to get very interesting.

To answer your question, there was an effort to save this building, but it was launched by architects. And the six-month extension provided by OCCF for ARCHITECTS to find a buyer was a bit silly. This is not something architects are skilled at doing. Also, the flooding problems, while an impediment, could be fixed. I'm starting to see the arguments for tearing this building down as BS.

Yeah I knew the Stage Center wouldn't go down without a fight. I honestly will not be surprised if this entire deal falls through before its all said and done. I will actually be surprised if it doesn't.

A grave mistake was made by announcing this before having a set plan. Those involved should have known better and greatly underestimated the people of OKC's attachment to this piece of architecture.

My only hope is that if the preservationists manage to get this project halted/cancelled, that the Stage Center will be put to good use instead of simply sitting vacant.

The is a pretty smart move if you ask me. If the preservation crowd gets enough money together they can buy it and the new owner turns a small profit then buys another lot. If he builds it and OG&E moves in, what are people going to do - stop shopping at OG&E? Complain to much and people might find out what those smart meters are capable of doing :).

A grave mistake was made by announcing this before having a set plan.

Do you have inside knowledge about not having a set plan?

Steve's latest comments about this:

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/3866542?embargo=1


More than four decades ago, city fathers decided to level a block of old buildings to make way for a modern theater.

That theater, first known as Mummers Theater and later as Stage Center, has provided generations of Oklahomans with great memories of musicals and plays, amazed visitors with its unusual design, but also was a troubled building from the very start.


Consider that decades before Devon Energy Center was built, the historic Warner Theatre stood on that site. The Huckins Hotel stood where Continental Resources tower now stands. Other proud old buildings were torn down to make way for what is now the SandRidge Building, Chase Tower (also known as Cotter Ranch Tower), BOK Plaza, Leadership Square, Oklahoma and Corporate Towers.

Oklahoma City's skyline is built on the graves of older buildings, many of them far more beloved than Stage Center, though none of them as internationally acclaimed as the quirky landmark.


The old home of Carpenter Square theater on the southwest corner of Main and Hudson features a beautiful colored mosaic tile facade. Originally the home of Bishop's Department Store decades ago, one can dream up the restoration of the building's jewel box glass storefront displays where the plywood now stands.

That building, a vintage mid-rise “auto hotel” garage and other early to mid-20th century buildings on the block may be next on the list of buildings to be torn down to make way for yet another tower.

Also, a short biography of Rainey Williams by Steve:

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-high-rise-developer-has-experience/article/3866492

Yeah I knew the Stage Center wouldn't go down without a fight. I honestly will not be surprised if this entire deal falls through before its all said and done. I will actually be surprised if it doesn't.

A grave mistake was made by announcing this before having a set plan. Those involved should have known better and greatly underestimated the people of OKC's attachment to this piece of architecture.

My only hope is that if the preservationists manage to get this project halted/cancelled, that the Stage Center will be put to good use instead of simply sitting vacant.

If you had been here when Sandridge rampaged through their campus you would understand that this is a none issue.i was upset about a few of the buildings on SDs campus being knocked down but don't give a crap about this. It's not urban, it's only bordered on functionality a few times at any point in its existence, and in a few months, there will be a solid building proposal on the table. Not a done deal yet, but if SD replace several very historic buildings with nothing, anything is possible.

Based on the comments and speculations of others over the past 24 hours, I see two possible paths emerging for the development of the SC tower.

These two paths are based on the notion that Rainey Williams (RW) wants and expects that the new energy MLP company will headquarter in OKC, but that Houston is still in the running. Not knowing for
certain which outcome will happen, RW has hedged his bets by gaining pledges from local companies that they will lease space in the new tower -- in particular, one prominent company that will agree to step in as the anchor tenant if the MLP HQ is not awarded to OKC.

In the first scenario, we get the new MLP HQ, and this new company is the anchor tenant. It's essentially their building, although additional office space is leased for local companies as well. This allows for growth of the MLP into more office space over time in the same tower. This is the golden scenario because this gives us the 35-40 (or more) story tower that reaches 700+ feet and really provides a dramatic addition to the skyline.

In the second scenario, we lose the MLP HQ to Houston. Not as desirable, but RW has the assurance from a local company to act as the anchor tenant in this situation. Combined with other local businesses that have been contacted for leasing contracts, this gives us the 20 story tower (or possibly a little bit higher, but not much). This less enchanting, but still solid project provides the baseline outcome.

It is presumably because of the confidence that RW has that both possibilities are covered that he could make the purchase. The OKC Community Foundation needed to be very, very sure that a solid development plan was in place before agreeing to sell the property. Their agreement to sell speaks loudly about their confidence that RW will come through one way or another. And it explains why the 20 story figure is being initially touted -- this much RW can guarantee. But hopefully, if the new MLP HQ comes through, then much more.

This all sounds very plausible to me. What it does make me wonder, though, is who exactly is the local company willing to step up and be the anchor tenant should the second scenario come to play?

So let's look at who would agree to be the anchor tenant should we lose the MLP to Houston.

1. OG&E:
Perfectly logical since they're already in this deeply, with Enogex being their own offshoot. We know that they need a new HQ themselves, so by agreeing to lease huge blocks of space in the new tower, they can ease their own overcrowding problem and pursue their ultimate goal of a separate HQ building at a more leisurely pace. By the time it becomes necessary for them to build a new building for themselves, their space at the SC tower could be gradually taken over by other growing local businesses.

One trouble with this idea is that OG&E may very well decide to stay out the limelight and not be known as the primary enabler of the Stage Center's demolition. Too controversial and high profile for them, as many have suggested.


2. Continental:
Presumably they're growing like crazy at the moment and are getting cramped already in their current downtown building. So we all assume that they will want their own HQ at some point down the road. Leasing lots of space in the SC tower could ease that burden, providing them with a stop gap until they end up building a tower of their own.

Unfortunately, this won't provide any relief for them until the SC tower is done, which could be another 3 years. They may not have the luxury of making a big commitment this far in advance when their own situation is evolving so quickly. Doesn't mean they still might not be interested in leasing some space in the SC tower, just not as the anchor.


3. Devon:
This is perfectly logical. I would imagine that Larry Nichols is a huge supporter of what Rainey Williams is doing and would be willing to help. And Devon might very well need the space anyway -- for themselves, or their own MLP, or both. I could see Devon agreeing to essentially "featherbed" the project by agreeing to lease all kinds of space, even if they didn't really need it, just to help the project succeed.

I like this possibility the most, as in the most realistic. But how realistic I don't know.


4. MidFirst:
After, Patrick's recent comments on this board, I have to throw MF into the hat. Perhaps they are still looking to dive into a downtown presence, and this would be a more expedient path to that goal rather than trying to build a new tower themselves. Who knows.


5. ???


Hopefully, though, this won't come to pass and we won't need any of those companies to fill the gap. Definitely hoping for the golden first scenario that yields the 700 ft tower.

Oklahoma City's changing skyline often will require loss of older buildings | NewsOK.com (http://m.newsok.com/oklahoma-citys-changing-skyline-often-will-require-loss-of-older-buildings/article/3866542)

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-city-high-rise-developer-has-experience/article/3866492

It's hard to imagine what was going through the mind of the people at OCCF when they voted to sell this.

I believe it's more than just the 4 and a quarter million reasons, it's probably the resources it would take to correct the issues with the building, plus the under utilization. My hope is they can keep a portion of it and incorporate it into their new tower..

4. MidFirst:
After, Patrick's recent comments on this board, I have to throw MF into the hat. Perhaps they are still looking to dive into a downtown presence, and this would be a more expedient path to that goal rather than trying to build a new tower themselves. Who knows.

Although MF does need room to expand(they've offered to buy 2 of CHK's buildings near them, which CHK was not willing to sell at this time), I can't see them being a tenant in the new SC tower for 2 reasons: 1)Jeff Records likes his office to be close to his home, and 2)He is a buyer, not a renter.

I hate to say it, but I know architects who are not as attached to the SC as one would seem to think, so although the AIA got the extension and is the professional association for architects, one can't assume that "every" architect is for saving the SC, especially considering the greater good that may come if it were gone. It's a stereotype. That being said, it is true those that are passionate about saving it will be extremely vocal, others may like to see it preserved, but understand that the building has had more chances than Morris the cat, and the impact of a potential new tower possibly housing a new HQ far outweigh hanging into a controversial building.

The SC is a different animal than say the Gold Dome. From what I gather, the "general public" as well as preservationists and the architectural community has an affinity for the GD for many reasons, so it has been essentially saved twice with the 2nd time coming from free enterprise with a local company stepping up who wants to renovate it and move into the iconic landmark that needs no address. The SC is not even close to that level of recognition because the "general public" has pretty much despised the facility since day 1. Therefore, free enterprise has not stepped up over the last few years. I suppose that could change now that the clock is officially ticking, maybe someone comes in and make Rainey Williams a profitable offer and he sells and turns around and buys another site in which to place this tower, but I highly doubt that will be the case. The SC is only a landmark to a small segment of the community.

More than likely, this office tower will end up being 30 stories 500,000 - 600,000 square feet, most spec office towers across the country going up now are being financed about that size. This size will be large enough to house OG&E/Enogex employees.

It's not a lack of interest in SC that will permit its demolition. It's a lack of interest by people with double digit millions of funding to salvage it after years of damage and/or neglect. I once opined if I hit a mega millions lotto there would be anti-SC folks who would really hate me. When there is that much money laying there available, one actually can have more money than sense and can do something strictly to do it.

Conversely, the thought of grabbing up others and trying to raise that level of funding holds no interest to me at all. That is time that can go to grandbabies, children, friends and relatives and helping others who need help. So yeah, I was rotting for the children's museum folks, the only real effort I ever saw, but I wasn't signing up to make calls, knock doors or mail in checks.

I have some good memories from times at SC. I'll learn to be content with those and wish for the best with whatever happens to the property next.

I don't understand why they couldn't at least announce the architect, Steve mentioned in the video that the tower is currently under design. Knowing the architect would of told us a lot of what type of office tower we are getting.

I think this was a smart move... All of this outrage will not be on the future owner/tenant. OGE (or whoever) can come in with an amazing proposal that integrates parts of the SC. And be the superhero.

"There's no money for the Stage Center!"

But there's always money for sports, always money in "incentives", there's always money - it's what you choose to spend it on.

Just take a few minutes and really look at what we're losing. Nobody likes every building, but this is history and something that gave Oklahoma City a different image in the minds of strangers. It's always pointed out by visitors. "You don't expect to see this in Oklahoma!"

Like any art, even architecture, it's love it, or hate it. It should still stand to love or hate. It's known by many worldwide. Taken for granted around here? Absolutely.

There's LOTS of places to build a new tower. On top of Johansen's masterpiece should not be one of them.

Before it lies in a pile of rubble, please, take a few minutes...especially the short 9 minute film with Johansen and a look inside Stage Center.....at least say goodbye.

Iconic Stage Center by John M. Johansen (http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/okla/oklacity/johansen/theater.html)

Saving Johansen’s Stage Center | News | Architectural Record (http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/02/Johansen-Theater.asp)

Stage Center Theater - Preservation OKC (http://preservationok.org/Stage_Center_Theater.html)

Mummers-Theater_from Johansen Official Site (http://johnmjohansen.com/Mummers-Theater.html)

MUMMERS THEATER (http://www.johnjohansenarchitect.com/JOHN_M_JOHANSEN_ARCHITECT/MUMMERS_THEATER.html)

Stage Center, Oklahoma City | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelstano/5872737531/in/photostream/)

About the Mummers Theater (http://www.seasonsofsoulfilm.com/Mummers_Theater.html)

A/N Blog . Dispute Could Doom John Johansen?s Iconic Mummers Theater (http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/38651)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz4GgZoTbJM

I hope the new office tower is all glass, and pushed to the street.

I hope the new office tower is all glass, and pushed to the street.
I'm sensing sarcasm

[B]"There's no money for the Stage Center!"

But there's always money for sports, always money in "incentives", there's always money - it's what you choose to spend it on.

Very, very good point.

People with enough money to make a difference have to care. We can't hold a bakesale to raise that kind of money.

I was curious about the actual date for the 90 day limit, but didn't want to have to stare at a calendar and count them up myself... so I used this site:

Calculator: Add to or subtract from a date (http://www.timeanddate.com/date/dateadd.html)

Plugging in 7/26/2013 for the start date (when the announcement was made) and adding 90 days yields:

Thursday, October 24, 2013

So that's the outer time frame. Now Rainey Williams promised details within 90 days, so hopefully it will be even before then. But that's the max date we're looking at.

I hate to say it, but I know architects who are not as attached to the SC as one would seem to think, so although the AIA got the extension and is the professional association for architects, one can't assume that "every" architect is for saving the SC, especially considering the greater good that may come if it were gone. It's a stereotype. That being said, it is true those that are passionate about saving it will be extremely vocal, others may like to see it preserved, but understand that the building has had more chances than Morris the cat, and the impact of a potential new tower possibly housing a new HQ far outweigh hanging into a controversial building.

The SC is a different animal than say the Gold Dome. From what I gather, the "general public" as well as preservationists and the architectural community has an affinity for the GD for many reasons, so it has been essentially saved twice with the 2nd time coming from free enterprise with a local company stepping up who wants to renovate it and move into the iconic landmark that needs no address. The SC is not even close to that level of recognition because the "general public" has pretty much despised the facility since day 1. Therefore, free enterprise has not stepped up over the last few years. I suppose that could change now that the clock is officially ticking, maybe someone comes in and make Rainey Williams a profitable offer and he sells and turns around and buys another site in which to place this tower, but I highly doubt that will be the case. The SC is only a landmark to a small segment of the community.

Biggest difference between the 2 is not noteriety, it's the address...

It's an interesting contrast, the Gold Dome vs. Stage Center. GD wasn't built by Buckminster Fuller. In fact he had nothing to do with it at all. Someone else created that dome based upon his writings. So that's kind of like me being a big fan of Frank Lloyd Wright (which I am) and paying some random firm to build be a house that looks like one of his. Does that make my house something of historical note worth saving? Really? But maybe people like it, and so then being reminiscent of Wright or Fuller is good enough.

On the other hand we have a building, SC, that was designed and construction overseen by a world renowned architect, one of five who was a student of Wright that is credited with starting the current modern design era. It's been on the cover of Time magazine, it's won architectural awards, and it's so significant that not only is it discussed in architectural textbooks but also it's design plans and a miniature mock up of it are housed at the New York Museum of Modern Art.

Neither building has been particularly well functioning in recent years. Both require a lot of work. And in my gut I think we are about to save the GD again and lose SC. Sell the diamond and shine up the cubic zirconium.... Losing SC is bad enough, but knowing the latter is almost a double punch to the gut.

As for Steve's article this week... You know, I found it a whole lot more under-whelming then I would have thought. Could that have been the point? Back-dooring support for SC? Or perhaps it was an example of rushing a story out without many facts to keep from being scooped. I don't know. Maybe I'll feel better about whatever is replacing SC when I see the big announcement that is coming, whatever that is. Right now the whole thing just makes me sad.

Neither building has been particularly well functioning in recent years. Both require a lot of work. And in my gut I think we are about to save the GD again and lose SC. Sell the diamond and shine up the cubic zirconium.... Losing SC is bad enough, but knowing the latter is almost a double punch to the gut.

As for Steve's article this week... You know, I found it a whole lot more under-whelming then I would have thought. Could that have been the point? Back-dooring support for SC? Or perhaps it was an example of rushing a story out without many facts to keep from being scooped. I don't know. Maybe I'll feel better about whatever is replacing SC when I see the big announcement that is coming, whatever that is. Right now the whole thing just makes me sad.

I agree. We have bemoaned all the open land in downtown. Surely there's an unsightly parking lot somewhere in the CBD that would serve as well. Does one hire a world famous architectural firm to build a gem of a spec tower that's 20 stories high. Color me pleasantly surprised if tha happens. If we replace the Stage Center with some mundane short tower done on the cheap we will not have served ourselves and future generations well.

I agree. We have bemoaned all the open land in downtown. Surely there's an unsightly parking lot somewhere in the CBD that would serve as well. Does one hire a world famous architectural firm to build a gem of a spec tower that's 20 stories high. Color me pleasantly surprised if tha happens. If we replace the Stage Center with some mundane short tower done on the cheap we will not have served ourselves and future generations well.

Very well said, betts. We are, after all, only temporary stewards of the past & present to pass along to those that come after us. (Sorry if that sounds corny, but it's true.)

"There's no money for the Stage Center!"

But there's always money for sports, always money in "incentives", there's always money - it's what you choose to spend it on.

Just take a few minutes and really look at what we're losing. Nobody likes every building, but this is history and something that gave Oklahoma City a different image in the minds of strangers. It's always pointed out by visitors. "You don't expect to see this in Oklahoma!"

Like any art, even architecture, it's love it, or hate it. It should still stand to love or hate. It's known by many worldwide. Taken for granted around here? Absolutely.

There's LOTS of places to build a new tower. On top of Johansen's masterpiece should not be one of them.

Before it lies in a pile of rubble, please, take a few minutes...especially the short 9 minute film with Johansen and a look inside Stage Center.....at least say goodbye.

Iconic Stage Center by John M. Johansen (http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/okla/oklacity/johansen/theater.html)

Saving Johansen’s Stage Center | News | Architectural Record (http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2012/02/Johansen-Theater.asp)

Stage Center Theater - Preservation OKC (http://preservationok.org/Stage_Center_Theater.html)

Mummers-Theater_from Johansen Official Site (http://johnmjohansen.com/Mummers-Theater.html)

MUMMERS THEATER (http://www.johnjohansenarchitect.com/JOHN_M_JOHANSEN_ARCHITECT/MUMMERS_THEATER.html)

Stage Center, Oklahoma City | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelstano/5872737531/in/photostream/)

About the Mummers Theater (http://www.seasonsofsoulfilm.com/Mummers_Theater.html)

A/N Blog . Dispute Could Doom John Johansen?s Iconic Mummers Theater (http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/38651)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz4GgZoTbJMI actually agree with this now. If a super tall were being built , I would have less sympathy .

Pete, we should update the info in the article

I guess no one else caught this from Steve's chat, but there was a totally different developer back in March that was proposing a new tower, that was probably our 40 story, 700ft tower, but that deal fell through, hence the the delay of announcement with new developer?

Gary T 10:03 a.m. Good morning Steve! Thanks again as always for doing these chats. I would also like to say that I miss your informative posts on okctalk.com. I understand your reasoning for wanting to distant yourself from it considering all the personal attacks you were taking on. I hope to see you on there again in a larger capacity maybe when things calm down a little. Now, a couple of Mystery Tower questions: 1) Since Rainey Williams (the person who bought Stage Center) is also a Director of OGE Enogex GP, LLC, is it safe to say the anchor tenant discussed in the article will either be OGE or the Enogex/Centerpoint entity?


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

I think that now, given that what we know is either a not a firm deal, or an insignificant building to justify demolishing the work of a renowned architect. OKC doesnt have much starchitecture. The Stage Center should remain where it is for now. 25 story towers can go on plenty other sites.

Like I've said before, if the preservationists are able to get this tower project cancelled, I hope the Stage Center is rehabilitated and put to good use. I really want to see this tower but thinking about the Criterion theater I can completely understand the preservationist perspective. However, the last thing I want to see is the Stage Center saved and then left to rot.

Agree with Spartan. Unless it is a 50 story tower or more then Stage Center will have to labor on. A 20 or 25 story tower is a waste of the location and the plans of a very shortshighted developer.

Agree with Spartan. Unless it is a 50 story tower or more then Stage Center will have to labor on. A 20 or 25 story tower is a waste of the location and the plans of a very shortshighted developer.

I wouldn't say 50 stories, but something that would make a serious mark on the skyline. A 20 story tower won't do that. It will be like the Renaissance Hotel built in the '90s.

I am pretty sure Mr. Williams knows what he is up against, he seems like a smart man, he stated the development will be "world class", so we will just have to wait and see. Too early to judge anything right now, but it would have helped his case if he had renderings when announcements made.

I am pretty sure Mr. Williams knows what he is up against, he seems like a smart man, he stated the development will be "world class", so we will just have to wait and see. Too early to judge anything right now, but it would have helped his case if he had renderings when announcements made.

Can't help but to think that Rainey is following this thread... I would think he would.... I mean, if I were spending millions on a site/building/demolition, I'd at least want to see what the plebeians thought of my grand plans.

Rainey.... you out there, bro?

Agree with Spartan. Unless it is a 50 story tower or more then Stage Center will have to labor on. A 20 or 25 story tower is a waste of the location and the plans of a very shortshighted developer.

Labor on and do what? Sit there and collect dust? Flood some more?

I will miss the Stage Center too but it used up its 9 lives a long time ago. Its different than the buildings in, say, Midtown or Film Row, which can be renovated into something that generates income (apartments, restaurants, hotel, etc.) I cannot think of anything that can be done to do the same with this. The children's museum was its last best hope, and even that fell through. Economics do matter.

I guess it can always be a theatre. But I have a few friends that work with one of the theatre productions in town and they hated the place, and according to them nobody in their field really wants to use the SC. Some of that feeling is probably due to the fact they lost half their stuff in the June 2010 floods, but its just wasn't very flexible space compared to other venues in town.

Remember when you are out enjoying your favorite downtown landmark either in OKC or Dallas, NYC, or wherever, something was probably torn down to make room for it. The CBD has surprisingly little land to develop, so this will not be the last time something like this occurs. Its early, but I am not detecting some groundswell of support to save this thing as much as this board indicates. Probably because most people would like to wait and see what the tower will look like before making judgement. If the plans for this building are what they say they are, then I have no problem with it.

Its time to let the Stage Center go.

I won't miss Stage Center and I look forward to getting rid of it. It's an eyesore. For those who think it's a work of art, well, feel free to go down to the salvage yard and pick up some old pipe, storage containers, and what-not, and build a replica of Stage Center somewhere else, preferably next to a dump so it will fit in nicely with the landscape.

Like I've said before, if the preservationists are able to get this tower project cancelled, I hope the Stage Center is rehabilitated and put to good use. I really want to see this tower but thinking about the Criterion theater I can completely understand the preservationist perspective. However, the last thing I want to see is the Stage Center saved and then left to rot.I completely agree with all of this. Very good points!!!!!!!

Agree with Spartan. Unless it is a 50 story tower or more then Stage Center will have to labor on. A 20 or 25 story tower is a waste of the location and the plans of a very shortshighted developer.That's what I'm thinking. Unless a super-tall is built, I'm not for it. I just think a 20 or 30 story building would warrant a demo of the Stage Center.

Labor on and do what? Sit there and collect dust? Flood some more?

I will miss the Stage Center too but it used up its 9 lives a long time ago. Its different than the buildings in, say, Midtown or Film Row, which can be renovated into something that generates income (apartments, restaurants, hotel, etc.) I cannot think of anything that can be done to do the same with this. The children's museum was its last best hope, and even that fell through. Economics do matter.

I guess it can always be a theatre. But I have a few friends that work with one of the theatre productions in town and they hated the place, and according to them nobody in their field really wants to use the SC. Some of that feeling is probably due to the fact they lost half their stuff in the June 2010 floods, but its just wasn't very flexible space compared to other venues in town.

Remember when you are out enjoying your favorite downtown landmark either in OKC or Dallas, NYC, or wherever, something was probably torn down to make room for it. The CBD has surprisingly little land to develop, so this will not be the last time something like this occurs. Its early, but I am not detecting some groundswell of support to save this thing as much as this board indicates. Probably because most people would like to wait and see what the tower will look like before making judgement. If the plans for this building are what they say they are, then I have no problem with it.

Its time to let the Stage Center go.Sorry, but that is not a good way of looking at it. I don't think it ever had a certain number of lives and certainly think it could be restored and put to use with the right developer.

I think the Stage Center would make a very nice museum of modern art. Ever seen the Pompidou Museum in Paris?

Sorry, but that is not a good way of looking at it. I don't think it ever had a certain number of lives and certainly think it could be restored and put to use with the right developer.

Well, where's that developer at? We've been waiting & calling on him for quite awhile, but we're still sitting here looking at an empty Stage Center.

That's what I'm thinking. Unless a super-tall is built, I'm not for it. I just think a 20 or 30 story building would warrant a demo of the Stage Center.

Unless somebody can fix up the Stage Center & make it function properly again then I don't care if it's a 20 story tower or an 80 story tower, an unused building shouldn't just be sitting there doing nothing on such a prime spot that has proposals lined up to build something that will actually function with the rest of downtown.