Yes, OKC is changing just like Austin did, but Austin evolved into a city that was still liberal-minded. It just traded rustic hippie for cosmopolitan.

OKC is changing from bland and soulless into something we don't quite know yet, but it can only be better. It's won't be as cosmopolitan as Austin, but it stands a chance to be more human-centric than Dallas. I have said it a lot of times, that if we do this right, OKC will be surprisingly similar to Denver when it's all said and done.

As for this Stage Center site, because no renderings were provided nor is the announced project all that impressive as far as we know at this point, these developers are going to face the worst possible outcry as they try and tear Stage Center down. If they had more to announce, especially renderings and financing in place, they would have had no problem in tearing it down. I would have supported tearing it down.

But I've been watching the outcry evolve to a fever pitch over this weekend, not just on OKC Talk, but on NewsOK, facebook, twitter, and other outlets, as well as with some preservation friends of mine. Not one to get over-excited, but I think these developers badly mishandled this and may have just walked into a hornet's nest. The only thing that will get them out of that hornet's nest is either producing renderings (or a better project) or agreeing to sit on the Stage Center until a later date.

I would literally rather just leave the Stage Center as a non-functioning monument to architectural modernism, removing the trees, add some fountains for kids, clean up the exterior, and then just let it sit there for people to enjoy. That would be far more valuable on this site than what has been announced to date.

Agreed. This is very typical in Europe where things still stand from the 1500's with no real "use" besides the historical or artistic value. In fact, the American willingness to put up one throwaway thing after another is viewed as short-sighted and wasteful by many in other parts of the world. Everything here has a price-tag as to how it's valued at this very moment. (Stage Center site! Valuable! Can pay X dollars and in 5 years it's worth...ad infinitum.) What's wrong with public, honored, acclaimed art, simply for the sake of art? Everone immediately thinks what the LOT is worth. It's a shame.

As I said in another thread, ALL acclaimed pieces of art, whether it be architecture or not, is loved and hated. I'm one that believes Johansen's building should continue to stand and be loved (or hated) for future generations.

If anybody here still hasn't watched the short ten-minute film on YouTube about Stage Center, you owe it to future generations to take a peek and just think for a bit.

Edited: To make it even easier, here it as again so you don't have to hunt it down in this growing thread.


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

Too bad they couldn't swap the SC site for the elementary school site. A school would need a theater and other parts could be converted into school space of some sort while the rest of the site could be built for the remainder of the school needs.

Charlotte had their building boom in the 2000s but today it has come nearly to a halt. I doubt they get any new towers any time soon with their local economy the way it is. I am not sure what you meant by this comment.I was saying this tower announcement is likely something that you are used to. I wasn't aware that Charlottes building had entirely come to a stop.

I would be happy with something like this to replace Stage Center, both 20 stories:

http://ww2.hdnux.com/photos/21/45/65/4611441/5/rawImage.jpgNow this would be cool

Oklahoma City, in general, has a very narrow definition of what constitutes art or creativity, and it does not have a big enough constituency that value out of the ordinary works or aesthetically challenging art and design for it to exist here. The result is that anything that does not manage some sort of mass appeal struggles, disappears completely, or simply never shows up.Looks as if most everyone (except me) agrees that this is an accurate observation.

Why, then, has there been such an uproar over possible loss of the Gold Done? It's also very much an "out of the ordinary work" even though it's never received an architectural award or been featured in an East Coast museum, yet enough of the city's population seems to value it enough to assure that it remains not only in existence, but functional.

Perhaps the public perception of Stage Center could be better understood by knowing a bit of its history, as well as that of its original patron, the Mayde Mack Mummers. The Mummers began as a true community theater, and financed its winter season by doing tent shows at Will Rogers Park all summer. I happened to participate somewhat in that summer activity one year, due to my friendship with one Art Johnson (we roomed at the same boarding house near OU's Campus Corner). He played the villain in some of the old-time "mellerdrammers" while I stayed backstage and took photos from the wings.

These summer shows were always quite well received, and provided enough income (the cast members got no pay, nor did anyone else involved except for the professional director) to allow winter seasons. The winter productions were always rather avant garde, but thanks to the subsidy from the tent show and to volunteer casts, managed to be somewhat successful.

So successful were they, in fact, that the group caught the attention of the Ford Foundation and qualified for a grant to establish a permanent home for themselves. The result was what is now Stage Center, and the tent show was no more. All productions became like the winter season, and "theater in the round" was so unfamiliar to our general public that attendance dropped off significantly. It's worthy of note that other venues and touring road shows remained quite popular.

With the fall of the box office, and no more subsidy from the tent show, the Mummers eventually gave up the ghost. Those who followed in this location had no more success; as others in the "Stage Center" thread here have reported, while the design is considered quite advanced for its time by the architectural community, it was never fully functional when it came to theatrical production. As one of the first venues designed specifically for "in the round" performance, it was ill-suited to accomodating the sets and props of touring productions -- which stayed with Municipal Auditorium despite its horrible acoustics.

To sum up, I think the charge that Oklahoma City has a "very narrow" definition of creativity is incorrect. It's just that this specific example of creativity failed, from the very beginning, to follow the Frank Lloyd Wright mantra that "form follows function" and consequently was doomed from its birth.

Looks as if most everyone (except me) agrees that this is an accurate observation.

Why, then, has there been such an uproar over possible loss of the Gold Done? It's also very much an "out of the ordinary work" even though it's never received an architectural award or been featured in an East Coast museum, yet enough of the city's population seems to value it enough to assure that it remains not only in existence, but functional.

Perhaps the public perception of Stage Center could be better understood by knowing a bit of its history, as well as that of its original patron, the Mayde Mack Mummers. The Mummers began as a true community theater, and financed its winter season by doing tent shows at Will Rogers Park all summer. I happened to participate somewhat in that summer activity one year, due to my friendship with one Art Johnson (we roomed at the same boarding house near OU's Campus Corner). He played the villain in some of the old-time "mellerdrammers" while I stayed backstage and took photos from the wings.

These summer shows were always quite well received, and provided enough income (the cast members got no pay, nor did anyone else involved except for the professional director) to allow winter seasons. The winter productions were always rather avant garde, but thanks to the subsidy from the tent show and to volunteer casts, managed to be somewhat successful.

So successful were they, in fact, that the group caught the attention of the Ford Foundation and qualified for a grant to establish a permanent home for themselves. The result was what is now Stage Center, and the tent show was no more. All productions became like the winter season, and "theater in the round" was so unfamiliar to our general public that attendance dropped off significantly. It's worthy of note that other venues and touring road shows remained quite popular.

With the fall of the box office, and no more subsidy from the tent show, the Mummers eventually gave up the ghost. Those who followed in this location had no more success; as others in the "Stage Center" thread here have reported, while the design is considered quite advanced for its time by the architectural community, it was never fully functional when it came to theatrical production. As one of the first venues designed specifically for "in the round" performance, it was ill-suited to accomodating the sets and props of touring productions -- which stayed with Municipal Auditorium despite its horrible acoustics.

To sum up, I think the charge that Oklahoma City has a "very narrow" definition of creativity is incorrect. It's just that this specific example of creativity failed, from the very beginning, to follow the Frank Lloyd Wright mantra that "form follows function" and consequently was doomed from its birth.

Thanks for this. I feel like it's such an easy way out to say that OKC has a "very narrow" definition of creativity. How stereotypical and insulting, honestly.

Although my present opinion is not fixed, I am presently inclined to join those of you who say that Stage Center can bite the dust.

Surely, it does represent something in Oklahoma City's recent past that is bold and daring and possesses unique features not to be otherwise found. Your thought, Nick, strikes a chord in me that finds some resonance ... leave the building there and make something of a monument out of it. That said, I'm less sure of what it might be a monument to ... to a protege of Frank Lloyd Wright, John Johansen, I guess. With respect, a John Johansen is not the equivalent of a Frank Lloyd Wright. More, aside from this single building, I'm not aware of any other connectivity that Johansen has with Oklahoma City.

As to property itself, it certainly does not possess the beauty of the Price Tower in B'Ville, done by none other than Wright, himself ... not by a protege, but the master himself. It is important to B'Ville because it was done by Wright. Were the Price Tower to have been done by Johansen instead of Wright, I doubt that B'Villians would see it to have the same significance to their city.

Other than the building itself and just "being there," it's hard to see that Stage Center has any connectivity to Oklahoma City's history, beginning with the Land Run and coming forward (I'm not talking about the Mummers history, but the building itself as a piece of architecture). The one possible exception is that it does have connectivity to the Pei Plan which, of course, didn't turn out so well for all kinds of reasons. In its style, the building's design connotes nothing which captures or involves the city's spirit or heritage up to the point in time that it was built ... at least, nothing that I can presently see. And I don't suppose that many, if any, would see Stage Center as something the city would want to emulate as a model of the Oklahoma City which is yet to be or become.

As to its practical design, had the property been engineered to embrace practical and survivability issues in an urban environment, it might be different. Were that to have been done, the property's potential uses might have been broader than have proven to be the case ... more, its intended use could have been more welcomed than the theatrical tenants who occupied the space seemed to say that it was. Perhaps it could be repurposed and put to some beneficial use other than just "being there." But, apparently, that is not the case, or so it seems.

As far as saving Stage Center as "monument" is concerned, if Johansen has/had the same stature as Wright, again, I might see the matter differently. But, with respect, a John Johansen is not the equivalent of a Frank Lloyd Wright.

A case in point is the Robie House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robie_House) at the University of Chicago, it having been preserved at that locale. I've been there and enjoyed a tour of Robie House several years ago. In it are the items of furniture that Wright also designed and built. If you've ever sat in one of his chairs, YOU KNOW that, given a choice, you would not to sit in such a chair in your own home. They are just too damned uncomfortable. But, again, since Wright designed Robie House and its furniture, and since Wright has had such an influence on architecture, you might want to have one of his chairs in your home, just to put it on display and say you have one. If you did, you would perhaps warn your guests that, "you will probably be uncomfortable while sitting in that chair, but you will also get a taste of architectural history when you do." Or something like that.

I just don't presently see that Johansen's work, award winning that it is, falls into the Wright category.

On a related but different matter, several posters have use the term "spec tower," or something like that. I don't know what that term means and would appreciate being educated by those of you that do.

That video really reminds me how much I'm gonna miss this building. I'm pretty sure I went on field trips to the stage center every year during elementary school. I don't think the stage center can saved mostly because of the fact that I don't think much can be done to oppose the new owners of the site. They can always say well we could just f-ing leave and build this in another city (even though they could build it like 3 or 4 blocks away).

With the fall of the box office, and no more subsidy from the tent show, the Mummers eventually gave up the ghost. Those who followed in this location had no more success; as others in the "Stage Center" thread here have reported, while the design is considered quite advanced for its time by the architectural community, it was never fully functional when it came to theatrical production. As one of the first venues designed specifically for "in the round" performance, it was ill-suited to accomodating the sets and props of touring productions -- which stayed with Municipal Auditorium despite its horrible acoustics.

To sum up, I think the charge that Oklahoma City has a "very narrow" definition of creativity is incorrect. It's just that this specific example of creativity failed, from the very beginning, to follow the Frank Lloyd Wright mantra that "form follows function" and consequently was doomed from its birth.

I agree with this. I was quite surprised in the rather negative reaction I received from the person I know who works in a local theater group when I told her it was to be demolished. She wasn't really all that upset, and her group really did not care for the layout or use of the center at all. Furthermore, lost in all of this is that should the Stage Center be saved and made into something else, it will require millions in land work to remedy the constant flooding of the site. If I am correct, this was not included in the $30 million estimate.

But you bring up a good point. Great buildings must look nice and function. The reason the Stage Center doesn't work is it does not function well. It must have something to sustain itself. Its the cold hard truth. The Film Exchange could be renovated into offices an income generating museum. The Gold Dome can be cleaned up and made into offices or event space. The Stage Center? Well, if the theater groups don't want it or can't use it, then what? I guess some of it could be disassembled and moved somewhere else; but to leave it as a work of "public art" and nothing else is just silly and part of the reason its in the shape its in.





On a related but different matter, several posters have use the term "spec tower," or something like that. I don't know what that term means and would appreciate being educated by those of you that do.

Just short hand real estate talk for speculative tower; meaning the space is being built to be marketed for lease on the open market. Of course we all know that this will likely not be 100% spec space.

Although my present opinion is not fixed, I am presently inclined to join those of you who say that Stage Center can bite the dust.

Surely, it does represent something in Oklahoma City's recent past that is bold and daring and possesses unique features not to be otherwise found. Your thought, Nick, strikes a chord in me that finds some resonance ... leave the building there and make something of a monument out of it. That said, I'm less sure of what it might be a monument to ... to a protege of Frank Lloyd Wright, John Johansen, I guess. With respect, a John Johansen is not the equivalent of a Frank Lloyd Wright. More, aside from this single building, I'm not aware of any other connectivity that Johansen has with Oklahoma City.

As to property itself, it certainly does not possess the beauty of the Price Tower in B'Ville, done by none other than Wright, himself ... not by a protege, but the master himself. It is important to B'Ville because it was done by Wright. Were the Price Tower to have been done by Johansen instead of Wright, I doubt that B'Villians would see it to have the same significance to their city.

Other than the building itself and just "being there," it's hard to see that Stage Center has any connectivity to Oklahoma City's history, beginning with the Land Run and coming forward (I'm not talking about the Mummers history, but the building itself as a piece of architecture). The one possible exception is that it does have connectivity to the Pei Plan which, of course, didn't turn out so well for all kinds of reasons. In its style, the building's design connotes nothing which captures or involves the city's spirit or heritage up to the point in time that it was built ... at least, nothing that I can presently see. And I don't suppose that many, if any, would see Stage Center as something the city would want to emulate as a model of the Oklahoma City which is yet to be or become.

As to its practical design, had the property been engineered to embrace practical and survivability issues in an urban environment, it might be different. Were that to have been done, the property's potential uses might have been broader than have proven to be the case ... more, its intended use could have been more welcomed than the theatrical tenants who occupied the space seemed to say that it was. Perhaps it could be repurposed and put to some beneficial use other than just "being there." But, apparently, that is not the case, or so it seems.

As far as saving Stage Center as "monument" is concerned, if Johansen has/had the same stature as Wright, again, I might see the matter differently. But, with respect, a John Johansen is not the equivalent of a Frank Lloyd Wright.

A case in point is the Robie House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robie_House) at the University of Chicago, it having been preserved at that locale. I've been there and enjoyed a tour of Robie House several years ago. In it are the items of furniture that Wright also designed and built. If you've ever sat in one of his chairs, YOU KNOW that, given a choice, you would not to sit in such a chair in your own home. They are just too damned uncomfortable. But, again, since Wright designed Robie House and its furniture, and since Wright has had such an influence on architecture, you might want to have one of his chairs in your home, just to put it on display and say you have one. If you did, you would perhaps warn your guests that, "you will probably be uncomfortable while sitting in that chair, but you will also get a taste of architectural history when you do." Or something like that.

I just don't presently see that Johansen's work, award winning that it is, falls into the Wright category.

On a related but different matter, several posters have use the term "spec tower," or something like that. I don't know what that term means and would appreciate being educated by those of you that do.

Doug, I'm not saying this has anything to do with John Johansen. To be honest I couldn't tell you another one of his works, and not many people could, because Stage Center was his masterpiece. This is about an architectural movement, about OKC's struggle with high design, about how OKC is displayed in New York museums, and building an environment of creativity and culture. Stage Center is more OKC's than John Johansen's.

Doug, I think OKC's younger generations, including your grand children and the family members we all want to come back to live in Oklahoma, would appreciate the Stage Center in the future. This building adds creativity and intrinsic value to the surrounding cityscape.

As for a spec tower (as in market speculation), that would be a real estate development that instead of being built for a client or by the owner (like Devon Tower), this is being built by a developer who will solicit several different tenants. Rainey Williams will be involved in the Enogex-Centerpoint MLP formation in determining whether OKC or Houston will win the HQ, but in the event it goes to Houston, Williams will still build a spec tower to avoid the specter of public rejection for OKC. It's a smart plan for the ED play, but I don't think anybody wants to see the spec tower we'd get if the deal falls through..

This has been such an interesting thread to read. I wish all the threads on this board were as intelligent, reasoned and respectful as this one.

I was saying this tower announcement is likely something that you are used to. I wasn't aware that Charlottes building had entirely come to a stop.

Yeah, I actually wasn't living in Charlotte during the boom. In the Late '00s there were some towers that were started but never finished and simply abandoned and left unfinished when the financial crisis happened.

I honestly think this project was not ready to be announced. But with the sale of such a controversial piece of property, and it being public information, it could not be kept a secret any longer. Rainey Williams had to say something to let the public know, and probably somewhat pressured in making comments on the plans. With the announcement being so vague, a lot is still up in the air, I would rather have waited another 90 days for more solid information. It's easy to take shots at the developer without seeing finished plans, so let's give Mr. Williams the benefit of the doubt and see what he comes up with before we are so quick to write off his development.

Now this would be cool

I am not sure. It's too NW Expresswayish for my tastes. The towers are nice but I would rather see them up against the street with retail/dining on the ground floor.

I think it would be cool to get a tower, no matter the size, with a pointed crown. That would do wonders for our skyline.

This is about an architectural movement

Not every architectural movement deserves to be preserved. Gould, Gittinger and Kaufman Halls at OU were examples of a movement, but there was no outcry when their exteriors were renovated to Cherokee Gothic because they were examples of a bad movement and were replaced by something better.

SC is an example of a bad movement (that's why there are so few examples of it), and if it is replaced by something better I will welcome the replacement.

I honestly think this project was not ready to be announced. But with the sale of such a controversial piece of property, and it being public information, it could not be kept a secret any longer. Rainey Williams had to say something to let the public know, and probably somewhat pressured in making comments on the plans. With the announcement being so vague, a lot is still up in the air, I would rather have waited another 90 days for more solid information. It's easy to take shots at the developer without seeing finished plans, so let's give Mr. Williams the benefit of the doubt and see what he comes up with before we are so quick to write off his development.

I agree that we haven't yet seen any solid, concrete plans for this site. Knowing that, I think we should be giving Stage Center the benefit of the doubt, and not just Mr. Williams.

And I'm sorry, but I don't know who this is. This is the first almost all of us have ever heard of Rainey Williams. When Steve Lackmeyer says, "For those of you questioning Rainey Williams, well you don't know Rainey Williams," I want to be believe. But he's right, I don't know who this is, and I think that's telling of someone's ability to pull off a major development.

The only way I believe this is achievable is if it is tied to a corporate master tenant that will enhance the building standard. It's not that I don't believe a spec development wouldn't work, I just don't think that the Stage Center is where that should be developed.

I agree that we haven't yet seen any solid, concrete plans for this site. Knowing that, I think we should be giving Stage Center the benefit of the doubt, and not just Mr. Williams.

And I'm sorry, but I don't know who this is. This is the first almost all of us have ever heard of Rainey Williams. When Steve Lackmeyer says, "For those of you questioning Rainey Williams, well you don't know Rainey Williams," I want to be believe. But he's right, I don't know who this is, and I think that's telling of someone's ability to pull off a major development.

The only way I believe this is achievable is if it is tied to a corporate master tenant that will enhance the building standard. It's not that I don't believe a spec development wouldn't work, I just don't think that the Stage Center is where that should be developed.

OG&E considering space in new downtown tower | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2013/07/26/oge-considering-space-in-new-downtown-tower-real-estate/)

Journal Record's Molly Fleming just proves info off of OKCTalk...

OG&E considering space in new downtown tower | The Journal Record (http://journalrecord.com/2013/07/26/oge-considering-space-in-new-downtown-tower-real-estate/)

OK? I'll be following the headlines just as closely to see if a master tenant magically appears as we suspect will happen.

I honestly think this project was not ready to be announced. But with the sale of such a controversial piece of property, and it being public information, it could not be kept a secret any longer. Rainey Williams had to say something to let the public know, and probably somewhat pressured in making comments on the plans. With the announcement being so vague, a lot is still up in the air, I would rather have waited another 90 days for more solid information. It's easy to take shots at the developer without seeing finished plans, so let's give Mr. Williams the benefit of the doubt and see what he comes up with before we are so quick to write off his development.

+ 1 to this ^ , also, a national Chamber convention was in town, and I believe the local politico wanted to show off a little momentum to the conference.

Another JR link that I will have to use my imagination based on the first sentence of the article.

I was thinking...shouldn't it be a good sign that the majority of OKCitians seem to be against the demolishion of the Stage Center at this point? Wouldn't it be more alarming if a tower like the Valliance Bank Tower was announced and people were gung ho and excited about destroying a unique landmark for it? Most of us here on OKCTalk were expecting a huge, game changing, skyline changing announcement. Now that it appears to be turning out differently, even civic boosters here are turning against it. Anybody think this may signal the end of the "development at any cost" attitude, the attitude that gave us Lower Bricktown and Belle Isle and the Pei Plan, that has pervaded this city for so long? Could this be the beginning of an era where OKCitians are finally starting to demand better?

I was thinking...shouldn't it be a good sign that the majority of OKCitians seem to be against the demolishion of the Stage Center at this point? Wouldn't it be more alarming if a tower like the Valliance Bank Tower was announced and people were gung ho and excited about destroying a unique landmark for it? Most of us here on OKCTalk were expecting a huge, game changing, skyline changing announcement. Now that it appears to be turning out differently, even civic boosters here are turning against it. Anybody think this may signal the end of the "development at any cost" attitude, the attitude that gave us Lower Bricktown and Belle Isle and the Pei Plan, that has pervaded this city for so long? Could this be the beginning of an era where OKCitians are finally starting to demand better?


With respect, I think you vastly overestimate the concern of SC going away. I'd be more inclined to believe the majority of OKC folk scarcely even think of SC, if at all, except when it appears on the telly news or in print. Of those, it's probably 60/40 who are unaware it's a facility that's been closed and remained closed for about 3 years, and was at best mildly successful as a venue prior to the doors being locked to the public.

I was thinking...shouldn't it be a good sign that the majority of OKCitians seem to be against the demolishion of the Stage Center at this point? Wouldn't it be more alarming if a tower like the Valliance Bank Tower was announced and people were gung ho and excited about destroying a unique landmark for it? Most of us here on OKCTalk were expecting a huge, game changing, skyline changing announcement. Now that it appears to be turning out differently, even civic boosters here are turning against it. Anybody think this may signal the end of the "development at any cost" attitude, the attitude that gave us Lower Bricktown and Belle Isle and the Pei Plan, that has pervaded this city for so long? Could this be the beginning of an era where OKCitians are finally starting to demand better?

The go-to plan for getting something done for 50 years was proposing it right before a bust, then building a lesser version, then failing to improve much. There has never been any way to hold developers to the plans they originally propose. The Brewers frequently snook demo permits through City Hall back in the 2000s.

Belle Isle was supposed to be a lifestyle center. Lower Bricktown was supposed to be a lifestyle center, University North Park in Norman, and so on.

I was thinking...shouldn't it be a good sign that the majority of OKCitians seem to be against the demolishion of the Stage Center at this point? Wouldn't it be more alarming if a tower like the Valliance Bank Tower was announced and people were gung ho and excited about destroying a unique landmark for it? Most of us here on OKCTalk were expecting a huge, game changing, skyline changing announcement. Now that it appears to be turning out differently, even civic boosters here are turning against it. Anybody think this may signal the end of the "development at any cost" attitude, the attitude that gave us Lower Bricktown and Belle Isle and the Pei Plan, that has pervaded this city for so long? Could this be the beginning of an era where OKCitians are finally starting to demand better?

First off, the "majority" of OKC is not against tearing it down for a solid new development. You're seeing a vocal minority speak out right now, nothing more. You're not hearing the voices people who either would be fine tearing it down or don't care one way or the other. People are much more likely to speak out if they are against something like this. It's just like the response you see for people against frac'ing, offshore drilling, or the keystone pipeline. Which side do you see more grass roots support for, those opposed or proponents of it? Generally the opposition is much more vocal, but every poll conducted shows that 70 to 90% (or something like that) are for all of those.

Second, I think we saw from the springhill suites protests or the 600 sheridan objections that people here are starting to turn that corner.

The go-to plan for getting something done for 50 years was proposing it right before a bust, then building a lesser version, then failing to improve much. There has never been any way to hold developers to the plans they originally propose. The Brewers frequently snook demo permits through City Hall back in the 2000s.

Belle Isle was supposed to be a lifestyle center. Lower Bricktown was supposed to be a lifestyle center, University North Park in Norman, and so on.

You make some good points. It seems like the most exciting stuff does get proposed right before a bust. There was so much proposed for the Memorial corridor before the 2008 recession that would likely have ended OKC's retail woes. I wish the Shoppes at Quail Springs would have actually been built - that would have been on the level of Utica if not above it.

Here is what was originally proposed for Belle Isle.

http://www.beckdesign.com/media/5921/bell_isle_mp-01r.jpg

Here is what we got...

http://mcminn.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/img/marketplace/businesses/images/2009/06/05/Wal-Mart_r470x260.jpg?86d48494c237f01f07dbf0fb9f3a08e2 ebe567b4

A lot of people's concern is that an elaborate tower will be proposed, the Stage Center will be demolished, and then the project will be scaled back to only a shell of what was originally proposed. I know that worries me some. Heck, if Belle Isle is any indication, it could end up as a one-story Walgreens or CVS before all is said and done.

Fact is, we all need to reserve judgment until we see what Mr. Williams has planned.

First off, the "majority" of OKC is not against tearing it down for a solid new development. You're seeing a vocal minority speak out right now, nothing more. You're not hearing the voices people who either would be fine tearing it down or don't care one way or the other. People are much more likely to speak out if they are against something like this. It's just like the response you see for people against frac'ing, offshore drilling, or the keystone pipeline. Which side do you see more grass roots support for, those opposed or proponents of it? Generally the opposition is much more vocal, but every poll conducted shows that 70 to 90% (or something like that) are for all of those.

Second, I think we saw from the springhill suites protests or the 600 sheridan objections that people here are starting to turn that corner.

I have to wonder, we have been talking about a major development going on the Stage Center site for at least a year now. Where were these people who oppose this then? Frankly, the Stage Center's fate is likely sealed since the OKCCF has already sold the land. Any efforts to save the SC should have happened a long time ago.

I agree, this is just a minority, and will stay that way unless Williams cranks something out truly hideous in the next 90 days.

A lot of people's concern is that an elaborate tower will be proposed, the Stage Center will be demolished, and then the project will be scaled back to only a shell of what was originally proposed. I know that worries me some. Heck, if Belle Isle is any indication, it could end up as a one-story Walgreens or CVS before all is said and done.

Irony is a CVS or Walgreen's downtown would be AWESOME.

I'm no architect or engineer.

Is it possible to build a building around the stage center?

The inside curved area could be an all glass mezzaine retail/lobby area looking into the stage center area.

The NE corner would front the street while the west and southwest is held up by supports and essentially hovering over the stage center.

http://gyazo.com/f13a7646ac40e8fef7beb81739296e68.png
http://gyazo.com/80d7341cab59c2636c5a9f10742a02f2.png
http://gyazo.com/e84e1bf67cc6077d7cdd89d70c8af363.png
http://gyazo.com/d0f0aca102076e902950696063660a59.png

Just an idea...drank too much caffeine tonight

^^^ Good idea, catch22. I was actually thinking about that possibility. Not sure how feasible it would be though.

Nothing is impossible for those who don't have to pay for it.

Just in case the Wife and I are going to do a crawl in that area and snap some pix just in case. I wish I had been more of a picture taker when I was younger and in the blink of an eye things and people can be gone. Digital photography make sit so much cheaper.

Nothing is impossible for those who don't have to pay for it.

Rover what exactly is your problem?

Are we not allowed to post ideas anymore? I must have missed that memo. Get over yourself.

As for a spec tower (as in market speculation), that would be a real estate development that instead of being built for a client or by the owner (like Devon Tower), this is being built by a developer who will solicit several different tenants. Rainey Williams will be involved in the Enogex-Centerpoint MLP formation in determining whether OKC or Houston will win the HQ, but in the event it goes to Houston, Williams will still build a spec tower to avoid the specter of public rejection for OKC. It's a smart plan for the ED play, but I don't think anybody wants to see the spec tower we'd get if the deal falls through..[/QUOTE]

Why would Centerpoint HQ want to leave this building?

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/CenterpointEnergyTower-Jan08-004a.jpg (http://s278.photobucket.com/user/gandjdunlap/media/CenterpointEnergyTower-Jan08-004a.jpg.html)

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/400px-Centerpoint_energy_plaza.jpg (http://s278.photobucket.com/user/gandjdunlap/media/400px-Centerpoint_energy_plaza.jpg.html)

^^^ Good idea, catch22. I was actually thinking about that possibility. Not sure how feasible it would be though.

No way you could attempt something like this... You do remember how far down Devon had to pier their supports for their building right?

When this site gets cleared they will dig down about 20 feet and pier their support for the new tower.

I'm no architect or engineer.

Is it possible to build a building around the stage center?

The inside curved area could be an all glass mezzaine retail/lobby area looking into the stage center area.

The NE corner would front the street while the west and southwest is held up by supports and essentially hovering over the stage center.

Just an idea...drank too much caffeine tonight

It would take a lot more columns than than and you can't just have big long vertical columns without horizontal or diagonal bracing.
Edit: Also, building needs a core. I facepalmed myself for leaving that out my original post. lol

Who Will Seek a Sales Tax to Save Stage Center? | News OK (http://newsok.com/who-will-seek-a-sales-tax-to-save-stage-center/article/3867083)

It would take a lot more columns than than and you can't just have big long vertical columns without horizontal or diagonal bracing.
Edit: Also, building needs a core. I facepalmed myself for leaving that out my original post. lol

Thank you for the insight. I wish/hope there is a creative solution that could be had to preserve the stage center while also getting the tower development. Sounds like that may not be the case. Unfortunately. And that fight is water under the bridge now anyway.

Rover what exactly is your problem?

Are we not allowed to post ideas anymore? I must have missed that memo. Get over yourself.

You are right. Only posts that agree are permissible. All others are subject to scolding.

I was thinking...shouldn't it be a good sign that the majority of OKCitians seem to be against the demolishion of the Stage Center at this point? Wouldn't it be more alarming if a tower like the Valliance Bank Tower was announced and people were gung ho and excited about destroying a unique landmark for it? Most of us here on OKCTalk were expecting a huge, game changing, skyline changing announcement. Now that it appears to be turning out differently, even civic boosters here are turning against it. Anybody think this may signal the end of the "development at any cost" attitude, the attitude that gave us Lower Bricktown and Belle Isle and the Pei Plan, that has pervaded this city for so long? Could this be the beginning of an era where OKCitians are finally starting to demand better?

Just don't understand how anyone can think this may NOT be a game changer..... nobody really knows at this point. I've seen this thread make about 4 turns on how people think. This is like a mob.

Centerpoint will continue to exist, only one division or segment of them is involved in forming this new entity. They will own stock in the new to be named soon MLP just as OG+E will. But it's a new Company (or Corporation, however you want to call it) not part of OG+E, Centerpoint or Arklight. Enogex employees are supposed to learn the name (officially), how & why the name was chosen this week. I believe a similar meeting will occur at the same moment in Houston & Shreveport. And (I know bad grammar) no employee is guaranteed a job at the NEW company.

Who Will Seek a Sales Tax to Save Stage Center? | News OK (http://newsok.com/who-will-seek-a-sales-tax-to-save-stage-center/article/3867083)

I can guarantee where this vote would go, if it came into question.

Nothing is impossible for those who don't have to pay for it.

Jerky comment.

^^^ Good idea, catch22. I was actually thinking about that possibility. Not sure how feasible it would be though.

The Holy Ghost building in Denver did a similar thing, they built around the existing church.....

Jerky comment.

Not trying to be a jerk. Just saying it is easy to fantasize, but the proposals have to be based on economic realities. If SC is to be saved then there has to be a reasonable alternative. All sorts of plans can be made or proposed but without solid funding it will be fantasy. The cost to preserve SC or the cost to encapsulate it in a building would be extroardinary....technically possible, but not feasible. If it was a serious question/proposal, then the serious answer is yes, it can be done, but at huge expense with no real opportunity for payback based on marketable value produced.

Not trying to be a jerk. Just saying it is easy to fantasize, but the proposals have to be based on economic realities. If SC is to be saved then there has to be reasonable alternatives. All sorts of plans can be made or proposed but without solid funding it will be fantasy. The cost to preserve SC or the cost to encapsulate it in a building would be extroardinary....technically possible, but not feasible. If it was a serious question/proposal, then the serious answer is yes, it can be done, but at huge expense with no real opportunity for payback based on marketable value produced.

Okay Rover, I apologize because I forgot to do a full engineering and cost analysis on my 10 minute Google Sketchup. Obviously I did not do soil or water table tests either. I promise to be more thorough in any future ideas I have. I will also be sure to consult the best of the best air conditioner repairman before I build this tower....

Get over yourself, this a forum to express ideas not an engineering contest. Lord have mercy.

As for a spec tower (as in market speculation), that would be a real estate development that instead of being built for a client or by the owner (like Devon Tower), this is being built by a developer who will solicit several different tenants. Rainey Williams will be involved in the Enogex-Centerpoint MLP formation in determining whether OKC or Houston will win the HQ, but in the event it goes to Houston, Williams will still build a spec tower to avoid the specter of public rejection for OKC. It's a smart plan for the ED play, but I don't think anybody wants to see the spec tower we'd get if the deal falls through..

Why would Centerpoint HQ want to leave this building?

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/CenterpointEnergyTower-Jan08-004a.jpg (http://s278.photobucket.com/user/gandjdunlap/media/CenterpointEnergyTower-Jan08-004a.jpg.html)

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk92/gandjdunlap/400px-Centerpoint_energy_plaza.jpg (http://s278.photobucket.com/user/gandjdunlap/media/400px-Centerpoint_energy_plaza.jpg.html)[/QUOTE]

Centerpoint's HQ will remain there. Their pipeline/midstream division is spinning off and merging with enogex, og&e's pipeline/midstream division to form the new MLP that might locate its HQ here.

Okay Rover, I apologize because I forgot to do a full engineering and cost analysis on my 10 minute Google Sketchup. Obviously I did not do soil or water table tests either. I promise to be more thorough in any future ideas I have. I will also be sure to consult the best of the best air conditioner repairman before I build this tower....

Get over yourself, this a forum to express ideas not an engineering contest. Lord have mercy.

Now who is being snarky?

I'm no architect or engineer.

Is it possible to build a building around the stage center?

The inside curved area could be an all glass mezzaine retail/lobby area looking into the stage center area.

The NE corner would front the street while the west and southwest is held up by supports and essentially hovering over the stage center.

...

Just an idea...drank too much caffeine tonight

Something like that has been done before with smaller buildings, it is pretty unrealistic to do so here It would be a terrible compromise in that it probably it really screws up the buildings functionality while simultaneously loosing some of it's most valuable space, so much of the interior would be taken up by stage center the mechanical/elevators/service space needs to be shifted to the outside so makes ground retail out of the question. They also need a parking garage, is that on stilts about the other part. After all that Stage Center is probably still not repaired and would no longer be visible, if it was though it would then look even worse visually. Building in a different location or demolishing the building are probably the two ways forward.

Centerpoint's HQ will remain there. Their pipeline/midstream division is spinning off and merging with enogex, og&e's pipeline/midstream division to form the new MLP that might locate its HQ here.

Yes, I dont think he was saying they were. People just say Enogex-Centerpoint enity because new company doesnt have a name yet. Its pretty likely that this new company will not be in the same buildings of either Centerpoint energy or OGE energy. The two companies would want to keep it separate.

Who Will Seek a Sales Tax to Save Stage Center? | News OK (http://newsok.com/who-will-seek-a-sales-tax-to-save-stage-center/article/3867083)
Having already said that, "my present position is not fixed," I must say that the almost 10 minute YouTube video of Johansen included in Steve's blog does give me pause for thought about the matter. It is well worth listening to and thinking about as part of the consideration of Stage Center's prospects. I've embedded the YouTube video below.


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

After thinking about the updated speculations on the new tower, I decided to revisit my original mockup.

We now no longer feel confident about a very tall (700 ft) building, only being guaranteed 20 stories. Perhaps it will still turn out to be a 700 footer in the end. But maybe not.

Steve also stated in his last chat that the new building will likely have "a much wider mass". So this leads me to ponder on the prospects of a not as tall, but wider and bulkier tower.

Not having any better image to work with, I grabbed the photo of the Duke Energy Center again, but simply chopped off the top. I'm attempting to scale the thing to about 510-520 feet (slightly taller than Chase Tower).
I then just duplicated the image several times horizonally to achieve the extra width. And then futzed around with it a bit to make it look more three dimensional, as if it actually belonged in the aerial shot.

Here's the result:

http://dl.dropbox.com/s/2egvpcu9ym9ua9l/merged_wide_tower.jpg

Something to think about.

That's pretty slick, but can you actually see through the Devon Tower like that ??

I like the fact now we can speculate on the architect and design, as we know we will be getting a new office tower. I like that mock up Praedura, bring on the new office towers. I wish we could find out the architect, that would answer a lot of our questions. On a side note, Chase Tower looks so dark and dull, its due an upgrade, it would be great if they did a new facade, it would work wonders for the skyline.

It appears to be the same height as Chase Tower (515,000 sf), so if the same depth, it would contain around 1.5 million square feet. That won't happen.

Devon Energy Center Aerials (July 26 2013) - a set on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/williamhider/sets/72157634839526279/)

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5470/9393384426_4591a20576_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7416/9390597151_c6e58bec4f_b.jpg

I am not sure what is so difficult to understand. Yes there is a lot of empty spaces a tower could go. This is not about tearing down SC to build a tower, it is about tearing down SC to expose the most prime space in the newly expanded CBD. This is a piece of property that borders the Gardens and eventually will provide further framing of these gardens once the Cox superblock is opened for private development.

There is a weird consensus that some people want to bulldoze SC because "they don't like it". No, we want to bulldoze it because it is occupying critical space in the new era of the CBD. The gain of the land and economic impact of its removal outweighs anything the vacant SC could bring in the immediate future.

There is an on-going and normally supported renaissance in downtown OKC, why throw a wrench in the gears now?

Do new OKC skyscrapers have to go downtown? A Parisian possibility
Do new OKC skyscrapers have to go downtown? A Parisian possibility - BatesLine (http://www.batesline.com/archives/2013/07/oklahoma-city-skyscraper-development.html)

This is some of the reasons I hope we either can get interest enough to either build a new residential tower or convert 1st national or another with a lot of vacancies to residential and continue to develop tall downtown with street interaction of the buildings downtown at ground level. I have a hard time seeing us ever developing a proper mass transit system any other way than building up from the core. Plus building outside the core is more likely to cause the building to be more like some of the towers along NW Expressway, where you are encouraging job sprawl (with that suburban sprawl) and the buildings have such large grounds they loose core reasons you build tall verses a campus style.

Another thing though was stage center was not any better on street interaction than the towers they talk about being built today that are the problem, at this point one of the few details we know is it is intended to have first floor retail, so is almost sure to be more urban than stage center was.