What other cities the size of OKC are seeing major commercial development downtown period? Louisville? Richmond? Memphis? El Paso? Jacksonville? None of them have any significant skyline-changing commercial developments in the pipes. Most skyscraper booms across the country right now are residential in nature. That is indeed something OKC lacks but will may start to see as property values increase.
+1

When that building comes down, Oklahoma City will have lost its one unique structure. Period. Love it or hate it. At this point, someone said in one of the articles, and I tend to agree, it is - in and of itself - a significant piece of public art not only in this city, but in this country.

Great post. And this building is coming down without a whiff of what will be replacing it. I formerly made myself "OK" with this, because I bought the "world class" hyperbole Rainey Williams put out. But at this point, I've lost respect for everyone who let this happen. And frankly, I don't want to hear about what a "great guy" Williams is, because his public statements don't match what is happening on the ground here. To wit, NO ONE has a clue what is going to replace this iconic piece of architecture. And if they do, they aren't talking.

If you quote him, I can still see his posts even though he's on ignore.

I think this thread should be renamed: Stage Center "Tower" would be more appropriate.

^ x 100

Oops... didn't see full thread. Make that,

Ditto x 100 what Urbanized said.

No matter how you slice it, no matter how many ways you look at the books, or analyze the politics of Brutalism, or decry the building's failure as a theatre space, etc. the fact of the matter is, we are losing a building of national architectural significance and for what... mediocrity.

That's what I call tragic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've given up on the argument of keeping SC, but you know after the things this city has been through with urban renewal over the years it really surprises me that there isn't an ordinance of some kind to prevent a structure in our downtown from being demolished until there is something in writing, signed in blood, regarding what will replace it.

Men in day-glo vests are rolling out what looks to be chain link fencing. View not be as obscured as we thought.

Because one will pay property tax and the other one won't.

So you are only useful bc you pay property tax? If so I can think of an easy way to make the whole state "more useful."

On a side note - I LOVE Betts' new icon.

You know, I hadn't thought of this until now but because Rainey Williams will own this building and not OG&E, there will be property taxes assessed.

If OG&E owned it out-right -- like it does their current downtown HQ and several other properties -- there would be no property tax assessed.

And since property tax is based on total value, the annual taxes paid would be about a $.5 million per year, every year once the building is open for business.

Even OG&E owned the whole thing wouldn't there tax-exempt status only apply the portion of the building that is occupied by OG&E. The proposed second tower for hotel/residential, public parking, and retail space wouldn't be exempted would it?

Even OG&E owned the whole thing wouldn't there tax-exempt status only apply the portion of the building that is occupied by OG&E. The proposed second tower for hotel/residential, public parking, and retail space wouldn't be exempted would it?

If OG&E was building this out-right then they probably would have kept the parking just for their employees and visitors (ala Devon) and then the structure would be tax exempt.

Not sure how it would have worked if they put retail in the building; in order to get the tax benefits they could instead put in a company-owned restaurant.

As it is, the property will likely be sold for the second building (as per Rainey Williams) and then of course that would be a completely separate taxable entity.


But no matter, as things stand now there will be a nice chunk of new property tax revenue coming when this project is built.

Men in day-glo vests are rolling out what looks to be chain link fencing. View not be as obscured as we thought.

The permit called for privacy slats to go into the chain link, IIRC. It will still be visible above the fence of course, and the whole site will be visible from upper stories. I saw the fence going up today too, and gate is now installed. Would expect the perimeter to be fully fenced by end of day. Glad I walked around it when I did on Sunday.

Here are privacy slats installed in chain link:

http://rutkoskifencing.com/system/images/BAhbB1sHOgZmSSIpMjAxMy8wMS8xNi8xM18zMl8yOF83MDJfSU 1HXzEyODUuSlBHBjoGRVRbCDoGcDoKdGh1bWJJIg01OTB4Mzgw IwY7BkY/IMG_1285.JPG

On a side note - I LOVE Betts' new icon.

Betsy Brunsteter painted it and graciously let me use it when I asked.

Betsy Brunsteter painted it and graciously let me use it when I asked.

Any plans to sell prints?

It's beautiful.

The closer it gets, the sicker I feel. I feel it in my stomach - literally. Just a sick gut punch feeling.

One last time? This short video sums this building up in under 10 minutes. John Johansen's last words chill me. I just don't know what's worth preserving if this isn't.


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

Will be nice to see the new building start construction.

Will be nice to see the new building start construction.

Or some final design plans that are significantly than the initial proposals for that matter.

The closer it gets, the sicker I feel. I feel it in my stomach - literally. Just a sick gut punch feeling.

Me too. I can't remember ever feeling this way about a building and the fact that we have absolutely no idea what's replacing it makes me feel even sicker.

Me too. I can't remember ever feeling this way about a building and the fact that we have absolutely no idea what's replacing it makes me feel even sicker.

How about they turn it back into a plot of land--rather than a vague imitation of a circuit board, as envisioned by the "architectural genius" in the creation of the eyesore--and make it into a community art garden, replete with unicorns and butterflys, dedicated to feeding the homeless as they tend and eat from the Special Part of The Community Park thanks to the vegetables they, themselves, have tended? Of course, this would demand a prohibition on tower construction in the vicinity because towers block the sun.

"Ad Hocism" . . . (geez what a geniusjerk . . . "let's roll this out to the rubes on the prairie in the wake of what brother Pei did and see who salutes." I'll give it one finger up. And a big thumbs up to whatever takes it's place.)

(the architect pictured in the vidclip appears to be a crackpot . . .
yet . . . "beauty [remains] in the eye of the beholder")

Again: Suggested Reading: "The Mark Inside"

The permit called for privacy slats to go into the chain link, IIRC. It will still be visible above the fence of course, and the whole site will be visible from upper stories. I saw the fence going up today too, and gate is now installed. Would expect the perimeter to be fully fenced by end of day. Glad I walked around it when I did on Sunday.

Here are privacy slats installed in chain link:

http://rutkoskifencing.com/system/images/BAhbB1sHOgZmSSIpMjAxMy8wMS8xNi8xM18zMl8yOF83MDJfSU 1HXzEyODUuSlBHBjoGRVRbCDoGcDoKdGh1bWJJIg01OTB4Mzgw IwY7BkY/IMG_1285.JPG

Any chance that drones hovering overhead can catch "the moment" of impact, even with the fence in place?

Any plans to sell prints?

It's beautiful.

I don't know but I'll ask her. I'd buy one, definitely.

Here's a link to an old blog from 2012. Says a lot about well, a lot... Brutalizing Brutalism: Why John M. Johansen's Crumbling Concrete Theaters Should be Saved | BLOUIN ARTINFO (http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/805003/brutalizing-brutalism-why-john-m-johansens-crumbling-concrete)

Here's a link to an old blog from 2012. Says a lot about well, a lot... Brutalizing Brutalism: Why John M. Johansen's Crumbling Concrete Theaters Should be Saved | BLOUIN ARTINFO (http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/805003/brutalizing-brutalism-why-john-m-johansens-crumbling-concrete)

Great article, thanks, and the last 2 sentences sum it up - "This is because architecture — and Brutalist architecture in particular — has value outside of its ability to turn a profit. Johansen's theaters stand as important reminders of this fact."

America really needs to stop worshiping the almighty dollar and profit above everything else, it's done a lot of damage in many, many, many areas by doing that. And yes, I know other countries do it, but I don't think many are as vociferously single-minded about it as America.

Pete, do you have any reason to think that no architect will publicly sign on to this project because they don't want the bad publicity about demolishing Stage Center? Could it be that Williams already has someone lined up but the announcement will wait until Stage Center is gone?

Pete, do you have any reason to think that no architect will publicly sign on to this project because they don't want the bad publicity about demolishing Stage Center? Could it be that Williams already has someone lined up but the announcement will wait until Stage Center is gone?

You must have missed my previous post on this exact subject...

I was told by a very good source that Pickard Chilton passed on the Stage Center Tower because of how they felt about the SC demolition and how it would look in their industry.


But that's a good point. Perhaps the architect has asked not to have their name linked to the project until the demolition is complete. To make it look like they didn't come on board until after that already happened.

We know Clayco has been working with them but Rainey Williams said in a recent Steve article that they were just consultants and that no firm has been chosen for the final work. Of course, that could be a complete smokescreen.

We broke the news about Clayco being involved (same source that told me about the P/C decline) and I'm not sure they would have been mentioned if not for that fact.

Great article, thanks, and the last 2 sentences sum it up - "This is because architecture — and Brutalist architecture in particular — has value outside of its ability to turn a profit. Johansen's theaters stand as important reminders of this fact."

America really needs to stop worshiping the almighty dollar and profit above everything else, it's done a lot of damage in many, many, many areas by doing that. And yes, I know other countries do it, but I don't think many are as vociferously single-minded about it as America.

While I see the value in saving SC and intellectually am all for its preservation, why is it that those without the money, or at least not willing to risk or to spend the money, are so eager to tell others that money doesn't matter and that they should pay. There are many in this city, including many on this board, who keep pointing out how wrong it is to expect a profit and yet are not willing to go in the hole themselves. There has been ample opportunity for those who are interested in saving the building to raise money, invest money, or at least start a public drive to raise money....and yet nothing has been done. In the end, there seems to be an expectation that the public should rush in and do something when those with more of an interest or even a vested interest haven't been able to do so themselves.

If it's true they are "hiding" the architect, this is a sinister approach.

The demolition should be delayed until the renderings are presented.

Here's a link to an old blog from 2012. Says a lot about well, a lot... Brutalizing Brutalism: Why John M. Johansen's Crumbling Concrete Theaters Should be Saved | BLOUIN ARTINFO (http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/805003/brutalizing-brutalism-why-john-m-johansens-crumbling-concrete)

Interesting. I actually walked right by that building a few times while in Baltimore last summer for a convention. Never did get curious enough to look into why this theater had been all boarded up. I do know that while walking by at night, I couldn't get the heck out of there fast enough.

Totally agree, guru. No demo until final renderings AND financing approved. That's how it is in other major cities.

While I see the value in saving SC and intellectually am all for its preservation, why is it that those without the money, or at least not willing to risk or to spend the money, are so eager to tell others that money doesn't matter and that they should pay. There are many in this city, including many on this board, who keep pointing out how wrong it is to expect a profit and yet are not willing to go in the hole themselves. There has been ample opportunity for those who are interested in saving the building to raise money, invest money, or at least start a public drive to raise money....and yet nothing has been done. In the end, there seems to be an expectation that the public should rush in and do something when those with more of an interest or even a vested interest haven't been able to do so themselves.

I personally have never said any of those things. I have grudgingly accepted the fact that it would be demolished for years now. Hindsight tells us that the time to save the building was a generation ago. Early on, it should have been accorded the respect it was due solely on its architectural merits. A foundation should have been established to maintain, protect and market it as an architectural icon. Such a foundation could have pursued funding from national and international sources, from tours of the building, and from revenue streams OTHER than community theater ticket sales or even OKC arts patrons. It is a very common instrument for saving other notable buildings, and it relieves the buildings of the burden of paying their own freight through tenant use. If a performing arts group could also call it home, great, but relying on a small nonprofit like a theater group to maintain such a building was crazy from the word go.

There is a lot of additional texture to this story, some of which I didn't even fully understand until reading the article linked in the past several days, not the least of which was the possibility that the (very esteemed) late John Kirkpatrick actually doomed the project financially to some degree from the beginning. The building never really had a chance due to the lack of support from people who mattered (and in fairness that was in no small part due to the way it was forced on OKC).

Again, the time to save it was a generation ago. The last real chance to save it was during P180/Devon TIF. In retrospect it never resonated with a champion who had enough horsepower, and we never brought the right mechanism to bear.

But I must say the "well if you wish it were saved why don't you just go raise the money yourself or shut up" statements to me are pretty meaningless and offensive. It is akin to telling someone who wishes we had a Nordstrom that they should either build a store for Nordstrom or shut up about it. It is like telling someone who wishes the art collection at OKCMOA was heavier in French Impressionism to pony up or shut up. It is like telling someone who wishes HVAC systems on downtown hotels were higher quality than through-the-window to come up with the money or quit complaining.

Wishing your community would aspire to do remarkable (or at least better) things is not a crime.

It was in response to the previous post whining about America's obsession with money by Traveler, not you Urbanized. I think it is fine to argue for its preservation and make a case for its support by the general public taxpayers. I agree with you, that should have been done a long time ago and maybe even thrown in on some other projects. It would have started with educating those who you are asking to pay for it as to why it was a worthwhile investment. It would have been a long term sale. It didn't fail because of capitalism and profit motives, or America's "worshiping the almighty dollar and profit above everything else". Preservation of the SC failed because the public is unsupportive (perhaps out of ignorance and failure to be educated), private enterprise can't and shouldn't be expected to make it work, and no altruistic saviors came forward. But, to blame this on greedy American capitalism was misguided, in my humble opinion.

The Nordstrom example would be correct if someone was saying Nordstrom wasn't coming because of greedy America and what was wrong in America was that these greedy owners focus on profit for the store. Wishing it was here is different than denigrating America because they won't come when they won't make money.

As for HVAC, my responses have always been as an observation, and to inform some that they weren't getting the quality projects they thought they were getting. I don't insist that Hilton Garden use a certain type of AC or they are wrong, but I am saying that IF they use it they aren't providing a high quality product or building a highly sustainable building, and that there is a chance they have cut corners in other places, as well.

I hope the OKC preservation standard are raised and the SC demo hadn't been approved, and I also hope they improve the building standards so that cheap through the wall HVAC is not permitted in downtown. All we can do is work to make those things happen, not keep blaming greedy Americans.

But I must say the "well if you wish it were saved why don't you just go raise the money yourself or shut up" statements to me are pretty meaningless and offensive. It is akin to telling someone who wishes we had a Nordstrom that they should either build a store for Nordstrom or shut up about it. It is like telling someone who wishes the art collection at OKCMOA was heavier in French Impressionism to pony up or shut up. It is like telling someone who wishes HVAC systems on downtown hotels were higher quality than through-the-window to come up with the money or quit complaining.

Wishing your community would aspire to do remarkable (or at least better) things is not a crime.

This is a common viewpoint in our country today. If you don't have money, shut up, your opinions are not relevant.

This is a common viewpoint in our country today. If you don't have money, shut up, your opinions are not relevant.

Well said and all too true.

This is a common viewpoint in our country today. If you don't have money, shut up, your opinions are not relevant.

Not so much irrelevant. It's the fact those that don't have the money, and keep being passionate and pushy to those that do, seem to be the ones that rub everyone wrong. The stage center means a lot to a lot of people. I get that. It's also not fair to push taxes on the citizens to save a building 90 percent of the people couldn't care less about. I use to go to plays in that building as a child. I get the sentimental value of it, but like a previous poster stated; I've been succumb to the fact it's going. Has been for years. It's a money put at this point. Far beyond being saved. It's an eye sore that housed transients for years, now. Sadly, it's time is up. I'm sad to see it go , but that Soave needs better use. Rainey Williams just needs to step up and show us what's going there and not I.M. Pei that property.

Not so much irrelevant. It's the fact those that don't have the money, and keep being passionate and pushy to those that do, seem to be the ones that rub everyone wrong. The stage center means a lot to a lot of people. I get that. It's also not fair to push taxes on the citizens to save a building 90 percent of the people couldn't care less about. I use to go to plays in that building as a child. I get the sentimental value of it, but like a previous poster stated; I've been succumb to the fact it's going. Has been for years. It's a money put at this point. Far beyond being saved. It's an eye sore that housed transients for years, now. Sadly, it's time is up. I'm sad to see it go , but that Soave needs better use. Rainey Williams just needs to step up and show us what's going there and not I.M. Pei that property.

I could appreciate your viewpoint without that slam. Those with all the money in this city never rub anyone wrong? Your projection is rather disingenuous - not to mention just plain wrong.

If it's true they are "hiding" the architect, this is a sinister approach.

The demolition should be delayed until the renderings are presented.

On what basis?

While I see the value in saving SC and intellectually am all for its preservation, why is it that those without the money, or at least not willing to risk or to spend the money, are so eager to tell others that money doesn't matter and that they should pay. There are many in this city, including many on this board, who keep pointing out how wrong it is to expect a profit and yet are not willing to go in the hole themselves. There has been ample opportunity for those who are interested in saving the building to raise money, invest money, or at least start a public drive to raise money....and yet nothing has been done. In the end, there seems to be an expectation that the public should rush in and do something when those with more of an interest or even a vested interest haven't been able to do so themselves.

I think part of that perspective is borne of a notion that tends to think of money in somewhat holistic terms rather than real, practical terms - that money should exist merely because the idea that requires it is of some inherent virtue. Some tend to translate that perceived virtue into a moral failing when those who have money choose not to spend it in that presumably virtuous way - even if the ones with the money with the best intentions knew there was no real-world way to make the "rescue" of the building happen.

You kinda pick up that theme in an indirect way here - not callling out any one person, or saying this is the only perception - just a theme - that inherently saving the SC is the "right" thing to do - that if you don't agree with saving it you don't want OKC to try to get better, do great things, as if to say there's no doubt that saving SC is the virtuous thing to do. I think *some* - repeat SOME, not ALL - simply don't connect the dots to see that of course there are deep pockets that could have saved SC, but those same deep pockets realized it was a money pit with no guarantee the end-result would have been what even the most ardent supporters remotely would have wanted. Surely anyone that thought it could have been done would have been delighted to be the building's savior with all the PR that would have flowed, but the virtual tipped heads and averted glances by those very people just said it wasn't feasible. Arguably what made the building interesting and worth saving to some is one of its biggest liabilities to bring it to its demise.

This whole thing is just a confluence of bad timing and bad economics around a bad building that just never captured the public's heart.

...it's also not fair to push taxes on the citizens to save a building 90 percent of the people couldn't care less about...

Not the first time the someone in the pro-demo crowd on the board has thrown out the straw man that preservationists were trying to "...push taxes on the citizens to save a building..."

I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I personally don't recall a single post in the entire Stage Center discussion that advocated raising tax dollars to save the building or forcing anything on "taxpayers." Just goes to show again that the pro-demo crowd really hasn't actually bothered to even listen to the other viewpoints presented.

Pro demo? I am now. It's a lost cause. My point with the tax comment was to say it's the only way to have upkeep affordable in the stage center. I don't think the okc citizens would go for paying a tax to bring it back to life and then pay for the maintenance. I know that was never brought up but preservationists.

It's been a lost cause for years, but because of the culture, not because of the building.

It's been a lost cause for years, but because of the culture, not because of the building.

Agree to disagree here.

As a taxpayer, I am happy to support things that improve Oklahoma City. We pay for the maintenance of every building the city owns already. I would have been thrilled to see any movement from the city to, for example, create a Children's Museum in the Stage Center. It would have cost a negligible amount of money compared to what we will pay to build and maintain a new convention center, for example.

Pro demo? I am now. It's a lost cause. My point with the tax comment was to say it's the only way to have upkeep affordable in the stage center. I don't think the okc citizens would go for paying a tax to bring it back to life and then pay for the maintenance. I know that was never brought up but preservationists.

If they can save the Marion, they could have saved Stage Center.

Pro demo? I am now. It's a lost cause. My point with the tax comment was to say it's the only way to have upkeep affordable in the stage center. I don't think the okc citizens would go for paying a tax to bring it back to life and then pay for the maintenance. I know that was never brought up but preservationists.

Preservation has always been afraid to ask for direct funding, but we really should. We need to stop pitching this as the cheap alternative - nobody cares.

As a taxpayer, I am happy to support things that improve Oklahoma City. We pay for the maintenance of every building the city owns already. I would have been thrilled to see any movement from the city to, for example, create a Children's Museum in the Stage Center. It would have cost a negligible amount of money compared to what we will pay to build and maintain a new convention center, for example.
The problem with that, is that the majority don't want that. I would've wanted that before the last major flood that completely ruined the building. Today? Not so much. It's beyond repair at this point. And it's very, very sad. :/

If they can save the Marion, they could have saved Stage Center.

Who is "they"? The Marion is being restored because a developer saw a chance to make a profit. SC had the same chance but NO ONE stepped up.

If they can save the Marion, they could have saved Stage Center.

Not a good comparison. The Marion is 100x cheaper to repair. I get what you're saying here, but it's still apples to oranges. I'm sad to see the building go. I grew up going to it. It is what it is at this point.

Who is "they"? The Marion is being restored because a developer saw a chance to make a profit. SC had the same chance but NO ONE stepped up.

The Marion isn't totally profit driven - the developer considered demo seriously and decided it was worth preserving a potential landmark.

The Marion isn't totally profit driven - the developer considered demo seriously and decided it was worth preserving a potential landmark.

I never said it was totally profit driven. In the case of SC, apparently NO DEVELOPER "decided it was worth preserving as potential landmark". RIP SC.

I never said it was totally profit driven. In the case of SC, apparently NO DEVELOPER "decided it was worth preserving as potential landmark". RIP SC.

You mean the sham RFP process?

Who is "they"? The Marion is being restored because a developer saw a chance to make a profit. SC had the same chance but NO ONE stepped up.

The developer could not do the Marion profitably. They did, however, receive historic tax subsidies, which make the project more feasible. They have stated publicly, however, that the value of the building will increase the value of their other buildings, even if it does not turn a profit. Pretty big-picture thinking. As a non-rich person, I admire them for doing this project that is in no way guaranteed to become profitable.

^guru

I believe the city tied their funding eligibility in with the other two buildings they are renovating across the street. So both the city and the developer used some creative big picture thinking to ensure it was renovated.

The stage center just did not have any political or developer support in being saved. Even if the city wanted it saved, there were still almost no proposals for renovating it. You still need a developer...

You mean the sham RFP process?

How long did the SC sit empty and unused? Developers had ample opportunity to restore it, but none chose to.

Who is "they"?

"They" are people with technical knowledge who do, umm, magic stuff, or something, to old buildings to make them not fall down. Architecturists and building constructors.

How long did the SC sit empty and unused? Developers had ample opportunity to restore it, but none chose to.

A far shorter time than the Marion did. From what I remember, the Marion was already vacant when Stage Center was first built. Hence why it's such an awesome example for me to use.

A far shorter time than the Marion did. From what I remember, the Marion was already vacant when Stage Center was first built. Hence why it's such an awesome example for me to use.

And in all those years it sat vacant how many times did some one propose another use for it? That's the difference, SC was vacant for long time and RW proposed another use for it.

"They" are people with technical knowledge who do, umm, magic stuff, or something, to old buildings to make them not fall down. Architecturists and building constructors.

If you do magic stuff to SC to make it not fall down, but still can't find anyone to redevelop it and use it then it just becomes an expensive piece of public art. And I use the term "art" loosely.

How long did the SC sit empty and unused? Developers had ample opportunity to restore it, but none chose to.

How long was it legitimately available and not in the hands of corporate interests?

^guru

I believe the city tied their funding eligibility in with the other two buildings they are renovating across the street. So both the city and the developer used some creative big picture thinking to ensure it was renovated.

The stage center just did not have any political or developer support in being saved. Even if the city wanted it saved, there were still almost no proposals for renovating it. You still need a developer...

The Marion is also worth pointing to as a sterling example of a public private partnership that moved the needle for an iffy preservation scenario. It is not an example of a slam dunk quick buck deal like the anti-HP crowd are constantly looking for.

OMG the idea that SC was not physically salvageable just drives my crazy. It is the most intellectually dishonest part of this whole discussion. Anyone who falls back on that is either being intentionally dishonest or knows nothing - NOTHING - about the building arts. It is essentially a concrete bunker. The flood basically ruined carpet, drywall, electrical and HVAC systems, all if which could have been easily (though not inexpensively) replaced.

It could stand abandoned for decades if not a century in its present condition and still be fully renovated. There are dozens of local examples of much more damaged and fragile buildings other than the Marion - many currently being renovated - that stood abandoned and open to the elements for many decades longer than the few years SC has been empty. It's just a ridiculous argument and ignores facts.

The reasons SC is coming down are simple:


Location
Location
Location
It's probably impossible to pay for upkeep with proceeds generated from its intended use
It's difficult to reconfigure for a different use
Lots of people don't like it, many of them important people
It never developed the following it deserved, in part thanks to reasons above
Nobody with deep enough pockets or a viable plan (that appealed to someone with deep pockets) came forward during its lifetime (in part thanks to reasons above)
Location

It's a sad story, but if there is a plus side it's that it's about to be behind us.