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)

I barely even skimmed through part of the article, and I'm sure he addresses the following points, but:

1. The answer is of course: No, they don't *have to*. The best case for this is Valliance, Founders, and Union Plaza. I wouldn't mind seeing more sky scrapers line NW Expressway.

2. However: We simply need the money downtown still. OKC's DT is not dense or live enough yet, and towers are the best way to fill the under-utilized space.

3. While I'm not for getting rid of the Stage Center for a bland development (if it indeed turns out to be bland) it is at best architectural heritage. It is mostly wasted space and functionally terrible. With the plentiful amount of surface parking lots or far less interesting buildings that OKC already has, I wish that this option was left off the table until those options were filled, but getting rid of the Stage Center isn't even on the same level as getting rid of something like the Renaissance Hotel were that option to be presented.

July 26 2013

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5329/9390632087_9cb3c91151_b.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5442/9390632537_5398529324_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?

+1

Can someone clarify the south boundary of the Stage Center property? Does it include the E-W brick section with trees bordering it on north and south, or does that belong to the OKC Arts Council?

I think OKC needs more towers any we we can get it. It's not that impressive from afar because central Oklahoma is so friggin flat. It looks like a tiny cluster of mostly short-medium sized buildings. Stage Center is kind of neat because it's different, but it's kind of an eye-sore in its current state. I'd prefer to keep it, but come on, more towers=good.

Can someone clarify the south boundary of the Stage Center property? Does it include the E-W brick section with trees bordering it on north and south, or does that belong to the OKC Arts Council?

The aerial in the article at the top of this thread shows the legal boundaries.

The Stage Center site's southern boundary is almost in the middle of the California easement.

It seems like Molly Fleming for the JR got more information than Steve. While Steve's article focuses more on the fate of Stage Center itself, Molly's article actually focuses more on the development of the tower, and prospective tenants. It seems Molly's article gave us more solid information. As we now confirmed OG&E is looking at space in the building, and that OG&E has outgrown there current space. And we now know more of Mr. Williams intentions for the property. We now know that even if a major tenant is not secured, he will still build the tower, and he is really not definite on the size, which could be a good or bad thing, nonetheless, check out her article, and give her credit, she got some good information. Not saying Steve didn't do his thing, but Steve is not the only reporter who can get info and break a story about downtown:

http://www.naisullivangroup.com/OKNews/OGEconsideringspaceinnewdowntowntower.pdf

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)

exactly. 621 square miles in the city limits.

The aerial in the article at the top of this thread shows the legal boundaries.

The Stage Center site's southern boundary is almost in the middle of the California easement.

Pete - thanks. This is a huge problem for the OKC Arts Council and Festival of the Arts, not just temporarily during 2015 construction, but forever:

The Festival will have to relocate everything that was located on Stage Center grounds: A port-a-potty trailer, pottery tent, food demonstration tent, street performers, the artists market, sculpture park, food & drink locations and two sales tents.

On the vacated California Avenue portion (the "California easement" known during the Festival as "Festival Plaza") is the Cafe Stage (the Festival's primary stage), several food/drink trailers, a t-shirt tent and an ATM. Some components are more easily moved than others.

Construction-phase street closures in the most optimistic scenario would affect only the west side of Hudson from Sheridan to California, but that would eliminate 10 of the 36 artists tents (40 of 144 artists). Recall that Devon closed Sheridan completely during construction, so this tower might require all of Hudson from Sheridan to California, eliminating 18/36 artists tents (72 of 144 artists).

From a practical standpoint, the Arts Council has to be looking at the next home of the Festival, and perhaps even a sale of the Council headquarters because the value of their property just increased with the development of the Stage Center site.

Pete - thanks. This is a huge problem for the OKC Arts Council and Festival of the Arts, not just temporarily during 2015 construction, but forever:

The Festival will have to relocate everything that was located on Stage Center grounds: A port-a-potty trailer, pottery tent, food demonstration tent, street performers, the artists market, sculpture park, food & drink locations and two sales tents.

On the vacated California Avenue portion (known as "Festival Plaza") is the Cafe Stage (the Festival's primary stage), several food/drink trailers, a t-shirt tent and an ATM. Some components are more easily moved than others.

Construction-phase street closures in the most optimistic scenario would affect only the west side of Hudson from Sheridan to California, but that would eliminate 10 of the 36 artists tents (40 of 144 artists). Recall that Devon closed Sheridan completely during construction, so this tower might require all of Hudson from Sheridan to California, eliminating 18/36 artists tents (72 of 144 artists).

From a practical standpoint, the Arts Council has to be looking at the next home of the Festival, and perhaps even a sale of the Council headquarters because the value of their property just increased with the development of the Stage Center site.

Depending on when construction starts, they might look at moving it to the new Central Park.

I hope they find a way to keep it at that location. Having the OCFOA anywhere but that location doesn't sem right. The thought almost frustrates me.

Depending on when construction starts, they might look at moving it to the new Central Park.

There's going to be enough room for everthing there that's for sure and I'm sure thats where it will go in the long term. Another possibility is moving everything to Reno and using the convention center grounds.

I am hearing that this tower has absolutely everything to do with OG&E and that the way this is being handled through Rainey Williams (board member of Enogex) has everything to do with deflecting controversy about this site. This doesn't necessarily mean Williams is not going to be the developer or lead investor in the development, just that all of this is a direct product of negotiations with OG&E.


It seems the main issue revolves around where the Enogex/CenterPoint entity will be located.

If it comes to OKC, they it will almost certainly go in the Stage Center Tower.

If it doesn't, OG&E will almost certainly go in this tower; they may still choose to go in even if E/C is a tenant also. OR they may build a separate tower for their own HQ.


My sources are from the economic development side who are involved with the various negotiations and incentives.

I'm pretty darn confident in my information.

I sincerely doubt the development going in on this site is going to require full displacement of the Arts Festival activities. There's also more space in the MBG to be used.

I hope they find a way to keep it at that location. Having the OCFOA anywhere but that location doesn't sem right. The thought almost frustrates me.

I don't think there would be much keeping the OCFOA there if the Stage Center is demolished.

Perhaps the developer could be persuaded to include some sort of permanent structure for the Arts Festival in the designs. Rather than having porta-potties and a collapsible stage, perhaps they could include a Rockefeller Plaza type area with more permanent structures and large public art that could be home to the Arts Festival. It would be a commitment to keeping the Arts Festival there on California. It also would help give the building more of a defined form. At the moment there's so much space there that they could put a tower, a parking garage, and then they may just put a big ass lawn in front. I think they will have more room than they literally know what to do with. Creating a defined space for an existing and popular downtown tradition would temper negative reactions to tearing down Stage Center.

If for whatever reason it does move, I'd vote Bicentennial Park.

Even though that easement is part of the Stage Center Site, it doesn't mean this new development would require the removal of the plaza that currently exists.

They could just leave as open space and let the events proceed as before.

If for whatever reason it does move, I'd vote Bicentennial Park.

That's where it was once upon a time.

It seems like Molly Fleming for the JR got more information than Steve. While Steve's article focuses more on the fate of Stage Center itself, Molly's article actually focuses more on the development of the tower, and prospective tenants. It seems Molly's article gave us more solid information. As we now confirmed OG&E is looking at space in the building, and that OG&E has outgrown there current space. And we now know more of Mr. Williams intentions for the property. We now know that even if a major tenant is not secured, he will still build the tower, and he is really not definite on the size, which could be a good or bad thing, nonetheless, check out her article, and give her credit, she got some good information. Not saying Steve didn't do his thing, but Steve is not the only reporter who can get info and break a story about downtown:

http://www.naisullivangroup.com/OKNews/OGEconsideringspaceinnewdowntowntower.pdf

Steve had some choice words to say on Twitter Thursday night after the JR story went out about someone "burning him" and about how his competition had "sketchy, bad info". It seems that there was some behind the scenes drama involving the leaking/sourcing of info on the Stage Center tower. I'd love to know the gory details, but only because I'm nosy.

From that JR article:


With the building, Williams will build a parking garage on the property between W. Sheridan
and W. California and W. Dewey and S. Walker. There will be public space around the building
and parking garage as well. In the next 90 days, Williams said he plans to work on getting a
building design together to submit to the Downtown Design Review Committee. He also has
to be approved for a demolition permit for the Stage Center. He said there are no plans to
have a final event at the Stage Center before it is demolished and has not heard any
concerns about razing the building.


Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. Corporate
Communications Manager Kathleen O’Shea
said the company has considered the
building as its future home, among other
spaces in the city.
“We’ve outgrown our building,” she said.
“There are multiple options that are being
looked at. At this point, we’re just
reviewing our options.”

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.

Thank you for the history. Great information and I think it puts into perspective how this has been a long time coming and not just something that came out of nowhere. However, I think the long decline of the theater and the attribution of its decline to its stage formats kind of supports my point that we have a hard time supporting things that are out of the ordinary or uniquely Oklahoma City. It was never a plug and play venue, but I think that's what made it so much more enjoyable for those who did manage to place a production there and especially for people who were able to take in some of those productions. Again, it was truly a unique experience that is often not found, even in some communities considered more “cultured” than OKC.

Personally, that's why I find its value goes way beyond its architectural style. If it were only some redundant venue repackaged in an avant-garde skin, its significance would be mitigated to a large degree. Some criticize it as a piece where form has dismissed function. I can't disagree with that more. Clearly from a viability stand point this has proven to be true and that is actually a more multi-faceted issue that goes beyond its appearance. However, I think the way in which its form enhances its function is rarely matched in design today. In fact, it’s rarely even considered to the degree it was in this case. From the moment you walked into SC, you knew you were in for something different. It invited you down its corridors to discover this sort of lost theater experience where the audience engulfs the performance. It certainly wasn't a new concept, but it was a format that had not been explored as often as it once was. It was given new life with a new design that created this cool sense of transformation from the real world into the world of performance as you entered the lobby and found your way down the concourses that led to the theaters. You felt like an active participant from the moment you walked in and it didn't stop until the end of the performances. When I saw bands play there it was really cool, because you almost felt like you were on stage with them. Even the lobby felt like part of a "choose your own adventure" scenario where you were presented multiple choices for your experience. IMO, when you’re talking art venues, that is form supporting function to the highest degree. (How's that for romanticizing!)

As for the Gold Dome, I think its ability to avoid demolition in Oklahoma City is surprising and inspiring for the community. However, I don't think it necessarily represents an unfamiliar type of work, the saving of which would signify that Oklahoma City generally accepts a broad range of creative design. In fact, it's not even the only example of geodesic design in Oklahoma City. IMO, its status is more like that that of the round barn in Arcadia. It's an uncommon design that saw limited use and examples have become more rare, but it's hardly as unfamiliar as something like Stage Center. In fact, geodesic design was used for the center piece of a Disney park. If it were silver in color, it wouldn't be strange for someone to think "mini-Epcot". It's an interesting snap shot of what many once thought was a "futuristic" building technique, but hardly something someone would look at and think, "I’ve never seen that before!". Yet, even still, it has been labeled an "eyesore at a good location" by many locals and, if anything, that's what it has most in common with Stage Center. Honestly, I think that is mainly due to the fact that it is no longer shiny. In fact, I think if Stage Center's exterior was shiny, instead of concrete and siding, it would gain more appreciation here, in large part by making it more familiar. What's exciting is that we may just get to see if I'm right if the new owners can pull off their plan to restore the luster of the dome's skin.

At the end of the day, my real point was that there really isn't much architecture in Oklahoma City that one can say isn't readily available in most cities of similar size and that's obviously a reflection of the community. We even have a hard time preserving some examples of our more intricate and ornate historical structures that, while not uncommon in the world, have few peers left in the city. Even putting aside Stage Center's uniqueness in the world of theater and design as a whole, the demolition of Stage Center will not be an isolated case of the disintegration and destruction of a rare remaining example of a type of architecture in Oklahoma City that was necessitated by a real estate boom that has exhausted inventory, causing shortages that can’t meet inflated demand. It's simply an example of another one-of-a-kind or few-of-a-kind structures in the city, in which the indifference towards it led to years of neglect and disrepair making it a target for replacement by something more familiar, or, at least, shinier, not because real estate resources were scarce but simply because it was sitting on a preferred spot. It's really been the developmental MO of the city over the years and when one wonders why we don't have many examples of uniquely Oklahoma City culture reflected in our architecture, that's why.

I'm sorry for the long winded rants on the topic and I don't want to sound like an Oklahoma City basher. I grew up here and after living out of state for almost ten years, decided to come back. I think it's in a better position in terms of quality of life than it ever has been in my lifetime. It's certainly more fun to live here than ever before. But I guess I have a different perspective than a lot of people as to why that is. Look, I like the Devon Tower. It's beautiful to look at and it's neat that we now have a building in the top 50 in terms of height. But I can't even begin to put it in the top ten changes to Oklahoma City since I have come back that has made living here better, except for the effects the presence of the company has on the economy and, in turn, my financial prospects. For me, the examples I would use of improvements to quality of life here in the last 10-15 years more often than not coincide with preservation and rejuvenation, not demolition and new construction.

So, while I am a realist as to Stage Center's fate, it's hard for me to reconcile this idea that Oklahoma City should just do what it has always done and expect different results. That, combined with my personal experiences at the venue and its uniqueness that extended beyond even the boundaries of the state, make it hard to not say anything when it’s spoken about as if it never added anything of quality to the city. Unfortunately, it’s now even being held up as a harbinger.

I agree that the new building could be designed to accommodate future Festival needs, but the Council's property just went up in value, the buildings are old (especially storage buildings), and I've venture that the highest & best use for this site isn't the offices of a non-profit organization.

Wait until late fall/early winter when Williams is granted the demolition permit and he reveals more concrete plans. By that time Nick Preftakes may have his plans ready to announce north of Sheridan, and this will define the area west of Devon from Main to California. The Arts Council can then begin soliciting offers for their property, with the closing after the 2014 Festival.

Perhaps the developer could be persuaded to include some sort of permanent structure for the Arts Festival in the designs. Rather than having porta-potties and a collapsible stage, perhaps they could include a Rockefeller Plaza type area with more permanent structures and large public art that could be home to the Arts Festival. It would be a commitment to keeping the Arts Festival there on California. It also would help give the building more of a defined form. At the moment there's so much space there that they could put a tower, a parking garage, and then they may just put a big ass lawn in front. I think they will have more room than they literally know what to do with. Creating a defined space for an existing and popular downtown tradition would temper negative reactions to tearing down Stage Center.

That sounds like the perfect use of a renovated Film Exchange building on Robinson as part of the park.

Without addressing the larger argument, if the Gold Dome were at Sheridan and Hudson it would meet the same demise as the stage center...assuming that it were in the same state of disrepair and non-functionality as Stage Center. The gold domes location is the major difference between the two structures.

Actually, I don't think it would ever have been built downtown. In a way, it's an architectural embodiment of the urban sprawl that so many here decry, dovering the better part of a full block with no height to speak of! My only point was its uniqueness to our city. Another example is First Christian Church at NW 36 and Walker, known to many of us old-timers as "the Easter Egg."

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.


This is something I haven't heard before, but I was thinking of as a possibility vis a vis the Stage Center. What if the Stage Center was torn down, but its design was recreated on the roof of a new building? Since (looking at Google Earth) the Stage Center is wider than the Devon Tower, the base surface area for a new tower would need to be larger, but I can see a wide 400-600 foot tower with a recreation, homage, to the Stage Center on the roof. It may retain some basic functionality--restaurant, bar, maybe even some type of performances. And/or it can also have its own light show similar to what the Devon tower, the Boathouses, the skydance bridge offers, with the addition of seeing lights zipping around the angular pipes and shapes of the stage center 400+ feet up in the air--you know, something that an energy company can do to show off. Would that be acceptable? Or would it look too weird to see the Stage Center elevated up that high? The current particles of the stage center may be destroyed, but the design of the stage center is recreated and maintained, we have a new skyscraper, and ostensibly better street interaction with 1-2 stories of retail in a key location.

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.

I think that's what I said.

Pete - thanks. This is a huge problem for the OKC Arts Council and Festival of the Arts, not just temporarily during 2015 construction, but forever:

The Festival will have to relocate everything that was located on Stage Center grounds: A port-a-potty trailer, pottery tent, food demonstration tent, street performers, the artists market, sculpture park, food & drink locations and two sales tents.

On the vacated California Avenue portion (the "California easement" known during the Festival as "Festival Plaza") is the Cafe Stage (the Festival's primary stage), several food/drink trailers, a t-shirt tent and an ATM. Some components are more easily moved than others.

Construction-phase street closures in the most optimistic scenario would affect only the west side of Hudson from Sheridan to California, but that would eliminate 10 of the 36 artists tents (40 of 144 artists). Recall that Devon closed Sheridan completely during construction, so this tower might require all of Hudson from Sheridan to California, eliminating 18/36 artists tents (72 of 144 artists).

From a practical standpoint, the Arts Council has to be looking at the next home of the Festival, and perhaps even a sale of the Council headquarters because the value of their property just increased with the development of the Stage Center site.

Couldn't they just close one more of the nearby streets for the arts festival? Maybe approach Devon about using their plaza and Sheridan?

Why is everyone assuming the pedestrian plaza will be demolished?

This is the very southern edge of the site and they could easily decide to leave it as is.

In fact, I'm sure they realize this would be a good PR move and that they'll need all the good PR they can get.

For the same reason they are assuming the tower will be 20 stories.

Steve had some choice words to say on Twitter Thursday night after the JR story went out about someone "burning him" and about how his competition had "sketchy, bad info". It seems that there was some behind the scenes drama involving the leaking/sourcing of info on the Stage Center tower. I'd love to know the gory details, but only because I'm nosy.

I didn't follow the JR's reporting other than what was in front of their pay wall, but I DO know that smart people give information simultaneously to the DO and JR in order to avoid accusations of favoritism and being blacked out. Minor stories: Issue releases via email. Major stories: Give a head-up on the date/time of the release, and where a principal will be available for an interview at that time.

Lol!!!

I hope they find a way to keep it at that location. Having the OCFOA anywhere but that location doesn't sem right. The thought almost frustrates me.

This seems strangely unreasonable. lol.

This board cracks me up sometimes... first everyone spends 2 1/2 years speculating. During that time even some poeple got MAD about the speculation. It was to the point that people wanted some sort of word... didn't even care what the word was, just NEEDED TO HEAR SOMETHING OR WE'RE GONNA DIE type needing...

Then we finally get the first real, official word of the new tower and now it's all "save stage center" and "if it's ONLY going to be 20 stories then don't even bother."

People crack me up.

This seems strangely unreasonable. lol.

This board cracks me up sometimes... first everyone spends 2 1/2 years speculating. During that time even some poeple got MAD about the speculation. It was to the point that people wanted some sort of word... didn't even care what the word was, just NEEDED TO HEAR SOMETHING OR WE'RE GONNA DIE type needing...

Then we finally get the first real, official word of the new tower and now it's all "save stage center" and "if it's ONLY going to be 20 stories then don't even bother."

People crack me up.

I read this thread for the last few days and it's like a mob scene.....back and forth like no other.....amazing.

I think some people just have a need to be upset at something.

The thought that SC was in jeopardy is not new. A once again renewed emphasis on finding use and funding was engaged in a year or so ago. Calls for proposals were made. Everything was in play. Nothing legitimately funded was uncovered. The demise of SC has been a real issue for some time, yet I have heard of no concerted or successful fund raising efforts by architects, preservationists, friends of the SC, or anyone else...not just for a use, but even for the acquisition. Everyone seems to want someone else to go raise a boatload of money to take care of the issue. And now that a "better use" is being offered for the site, we are again confronted with the demolition. Not a surprise. But, where are the legitimate PLANS and ACTIONS to actually save and do something with this structure?

Please don't take this as an endorsement of tearing it down...I actually think it is worth preserving. But, if it is only a piece of art and an homage to a particular architect or a style of architecture long ago abandoned and dismissed, then it will be hard to get support for preserving. And those with the passion to preach for it haven't been able to fund it or convince those who can.

Tick tock.

The reality of this situation is starting to settle in as we have moved from the conceptual idea of it being demolished to knowing it's going to happen, and likely soon.


I'm sure once we see the plans people will start to think it terms of moving forward.

this seems strangely unreasonable. Lol.

This board cracks me up sometimes... First everyone spends 2 1/2 years speculating. During that time even some poeple got mad about the speculation. It was to the point that people wanted some sort of word... Didn't even care what the word was, just needed to hear something or we're gonna die type needing...

Then we finally get the first real, official word of the new tower and now it's all "save stage center" and "if it's only going to be 20 stories then don't even bother."

people crack me up.


i read this thread for the last few days and it's like a mob scene.....back and forth like no other.....amazing.


i think some people just have a need to be upset at something.

The thought that sc was in jeopardy is not new. A once again renewed emphasis on finding use and funding was engaged in a year or so ago. Calls for proposals were made. Everything was in play. Nothing legitimately funded was uncovered. The demise of sc has been a real issue for some time, yet i have heard of no concerted or successful fund raising efforts by architects, preservationists, friends of the sc, or anyone else...not just for a use, but even for the acquisition. Everyone seems to want someone else to go raise a boatload of money to take care of the issue. And now that a "better use" is being offered for the site, we are again confronted with the demolition. Not a surprise. But, where are the legitimate plans and actions to actually save and do something with this structure?

Please don't take this as an endorsement of tearing it down...i actually think it is worth preserving. But, if it is only a piece of art and an homage to a particular architect or a style of architecture long ago abandoned and dismissed, then it will be hard to get support for preserving. And those with the passion to preach for it haven't been able to fund it or convince those who can.

Tick tock.

Amen! Amen! And AMEN!

I predict that once tower plans are solidified and presented for design review, that the opposition to demolition will not find much traction and approvals will come pretty quickly.

Probably much more quickly and smoothly than the SandRidge demolitions.

I think one of 3 scencarios are going to happen re new tower:

1) OG&E is anchor tenant, but the Enogex/Centerpoint MLP will locate all operations in Houston, resulting in the tower being 25 stories, with OG&E taking up 20, and leaving 5 for a smaller energy company.

2) OG&E is anchor tenant, but the Enogex/Centerpoint MLP is headquarted in Houston, but does have some operations here, resulting in the tower being 30 stories.

3) OG&E is anchor tenant, and Enogex/Centerpoing MLP is headquarted here, resulting in the tower being 40 stories, as originally thought.

*or none of this happens and we all wake up and it was just a dream, lol.

I think some people just have a need to be upset at something.

The thought that SC was in jeopardy is not new. A once again renewed emphasis on finding use and funding was engaged in a year or so ago. Calls for proposals were made. Everything was in play. Nothing legitimately funded was uncovered. The demise of SC has been a real issue for some time, yet I have heard of no concerted or successful fund raising efforts by architects, preservationists, friends of the SC, or anyone else...not just for a use, but even for the acquisition. Everyone seems to want someone else to go raise a boatload of money to take care of the issue. And now that a "better use" is being offered for the site, we are again confronted with the demolition. Not a surprise. But, where are the legitimate PLANS and ACTIONS to actually save and do something with this structure?

Please don't take this as an endorsement of tearing it down...I actually think it is worth preserving. But, if it is only a piece of art and an homage to a particular architect or a style of architecture long ago abandoned and dismissed, then it will be hard to get support for preserving. And those with the passion to preach for it haven't been able to fund it or convince those who can.

Tick tock.

Exactly. The reality is that it was in jeopardy the day it opened. It was built in the wrong place in the wrong city.

This seems strangely unreasonable. lol.

This board cracks me up sometimes... first everyone spends 2 1/2 years speculating. During that time even some poeple got MAD about the speculation. It was to the point that people wanted some sort of word... didn't even care what the word was, just NEEDED TO HEAR SOMETHING OR WE'RE GONNA DIE type needing...

Then we finally get the first real, official word of the new tower and now it's all "save stage center" and "if it's ONLY going to be 20 stories then don't even bother."

People crack me up.

I am certainly not at the forefront of saving it. It's time has come, it has to go. At the same time this place is very nostalgic to me and does hold a special place in my heart. I have very many memories at the OCFOA growing up, always thought the SC was very cool. Reminded me of Gotham City, somehow. A very troubling time growing up, and looking back I had many good memories there. In that sense it does frustrate me to see it go, because that section of downtown always comforts me when I pass by, because I see those memories again.

I was also referencing the FOA and not really the Stage Center as much. I'd love to see the FOA remain there, would be an awesome setting nestled behind this new tower, the Myriad Gardens, and Devon.

I think one of 3 scencarios are going to happen re new tower:

1) OG&E is anchor tenant, but the Enogex/Centerpoint MLP will locate all operations in Houston, resulting in the tower being 25 stories, with OG&E taking up 20, and leaving 5 for a smaller energy company.

2) OG&E is anchor tenant, but the Enogex/Centerpoint MLP is headquarted in Houston, but does have some operations here, resulting in the tower being 30 stories.

3) OG&E is anchor tenant, and Enogex/Centerpoing MLP is headquarted here, resulting in the tower being 40 stories, as originally thought.

*or none of this happens and we all wake up and it was just a dream, lol.

I think that if the MLP HQ goes to OKC, then they are the anchor tenant and OG&E builds a separate new tower for themselves (also my favorite scenario).

I also think that the SC tower will have multiple tenants leasing space there, regardless of which scenario plays out. In the case of the MLP becoming the anchor, then that extra space is available for future expansion.

[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.



Yes, but sports has paid us back in a variety of measurable ways....

Yes, but sports has paid us back in a variety of measurable ways....

Verily, verily I say... Ed of the house of crunk speaketh the truth.

Yes, but sports has paid us back in a variety of measurable ways....

So has art. It's really just on a different scale. Even completely saving Stage Center would be a fraction of what has been spent on Gaylord Memorial, the Arena, and the Bricktown Ballpark alone. The Thunder would not be here without subsidy. We know that. OU football thrives on generous donations made every year.

A community theater does not generate nearly the economic impact of those venues do, but bringing it back to life and operating it would not cost as much as those venues do. But let's not pretend that art events and facilities do not generate tourism or tax revenue or that it's not part of the "quality of life" indices that factor into the type of worker base a city can attract for corporate employers. I know it takes a lot of public assistance to make large scale art programs work, but, obviously, so does large scale sports.

Don't get me wrong. I am an OU and thunder season ticket holder. I just like art too and don't see its contribution to the community or quality life or even tax revenue as insignificant, it's just of a different nature and scale.

A community theater does not generate nearly the economic impact of those venues do, but bringing it back to life and operating it would not cost as much as those venues do.Isn't that what Lyric Theater is all about? Granted, it's not downtown -- but for the arts, that's often an advantage rather than a drawback...

Millennials have a much greater appreciation for the arts than most other recent generations. The cities they want to live in are cities with a vibrant arts culture. OKC would be unwise to ignore this fact.

Wouldn't the Stage Center be cool as an art museum?

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 am hearing that this tower has absolutely everything to do with OG&E and that the way this is being handled through Rainey Williams (board member of Enogex) has everything to do with deflecting controversy about this site. This doesn't necessarily mean Williams is not going to be the developer or lead investor in the development, just that all of this is a direct product of negotiations with OG&E.


It seems the main issue revolves around where the Enogex/CenterPoint entity will be located.

If it comes to OKC, they it will almost certainly go in the Stage Center Tower.

If it doesn't, OG&E will almost certainly go in this tower; they may still choose to go in even if E/C is a tenant also. OR they may build a separate tower for their own HQ.


My sources are from the economic development side who are involved with the various negotiations and incentives.

I'm pretty darn confident in my information.
I kind of feel the same way, Rainey Williams is the "point man" to run interference for OG+E/Enogex/Centerpoint and to take the heat off of them for the demolition of Stage Center. It was done now to get the pump primed so to speak, it wouldn't be the first time this has happened, I have seen it happen before and the project was turned over to a developer after the hurdles had been cleared.

So has art. It's really just on a different scale. Even completely saving Stage Center would be a fraction of what has been spent on Gaylord Memorial, the Arena, and the Bricktown Ballpark alone. The Thunder would not be here without subsidy. We know that. OU football thrives on generous donations made every year.

A community theater does not generate nearly the economic impact of those venues do, but bringing it back to life and operating it would not cost as much as those venues do. But let's not pretend that art events and facilities do not generate tourism or tax revenue or that it's not part of the "quality of life" indices that factor into the type of worker base a city can attract for corporate employers. I know it takes a lot of public assistance to make large scale art programs work, but, obviously, so does large scale sports.

Don't get me wrong. I am an OU and thunder season ticket holder. I just like art too and don't see its contribution to the community or quality life or even tax revenue as insignificant, it's just of a different nature and scale.

The building was apparently not doing a lot of favors to the arts community either. Several have stated that it was not fitted well for the types of shows they or the touring acts did and was somewhat inflexible, plus both in building and renovation it bit the biger donors on each of the larger drives. First by insulting people for not being happy about a controversial design they did not like and second by flooding again a few years after repairs were made. A drawback of one off designs that are trying a new approach is that is where you tend find problems, many of the most well known structures were not the first of their style but a high point in the refinement of that style, often in a popular or at least be heavily traveled location

I think that if the MLP HQ goes to OKC, then they are the anchor tenant and OG&E builds a separate new tower for themselves (also my favorite scenario).

I also think that the SC tower will have multiple tenants leasing space there, regardless of which scenario plays out. In the case of the MLP becoming the anchor, then that extra space is available for future expansion.

Could it be that we are in direct competition with Houston to see who comes up with best proposal and incentive package? I might note that Hines is developing a 40+ story office tower right now in downtown Houston, and are currently looking for tenants, moreover, they have expanded the size of the tower and fast tracked to start construction, without any tenants signed to date. If so, Rainey Williams needs to get on the ball, because Hines is moving quickly:

Houston's next great skyscraper? Hines to Texas size new office tower - CultureMap Houston (http://houston.culturemap.com/news/realestate/07-08-13-houstons-next-great-skyscraper-hines-to-texas-size-new-main-street-office-tower-speed-up-development/)

Maybe Hines would be in line to develop the Stage Center Tower as well.

Isn't that what Lyric Theater is all about? Granted, it's not downtown -- but for the arts, that's often an advantage rather than a drawback...

Lyric is downtown...at the Civic Center (rebuilt with Maps money), and the smaller plays at the Plaza.

Maybe Hines would be in line to develop the Stage Center Tower as well.

That is a possibility, if Hines was involved then we know it will be top of the line!

Millennials have a much greater appreciation for the arts than most other recent generations. The cities they want to live in are cities with a vibrant arts culture. OKC would be unwise to ignore this fact.

Wouldn't the Stage Center be cool as an art museum?

I can only imagine how all those great works of art would look after the damage inflicted by the inevitable next flood or roof collapse or corresponding disaster to befall the place...

The building was apparently not doing a lot of favors to the arts community either. Several have stated that it was not fitted well for the types of shows they or the touring acts did and was somewhat inflexible, plus both in building and renovation it bit the biger downers on each of the larger drives. First by insulting people for not being happy about a design they did not like and second by flooding again a few years after repairs were made. A drawback of one off designs that are trying a new approach is that is where you tend find problems, many of the most well known structures were not the first of their style but a high point in the refinement of that style, often in a popular or at least be heavily traveled location

I guess the "Like" button is gone again, so in its absence.. "THIS."

The recurring theme is that everyone things this building is just wonderful until someone has the audacity to try and use it...then, not so much.

Lyric is downtown...at the Civic Center (rebuilt with Maps money), and the smaller plays at the Plaza.

To clarify, Lyric has four shows a year at the Civic Center who they rent the space from, but they have four or more shows a year at the Plaza Theatre. The Civic Center shows only run six shows each for a total of 24 shows throughout the total summer. The shows at the Plaza Theatre usually run about three to four weeks with five shows a week, sometimes more. Also, if it weren't for Lyric being the "anchor tenant", 16th street might not be where it is today.

Millennials have a much greater appreciation for the arts than most other recent generations. The cities they want to live in are cities with a vibrant arts culture. OKC would be unwise to ignore this fact.

Wouldn't the Stage Center be cool as an art museum?

Wow. I have been to the OKC Museum of Art 3 times in the last month, the Fred Jones Museum twice, multiple Paseo art galleries and to two Lyric productions in the last month. I failed to see virtually any millennials at any of these venues. I wish it was otherwise, but tatoo art and bar art doesn't constitute supporting the arts. The millennials need to actually go to some of the outstanding art events we have in this city and it might help to actually create a stronger impression of support for venues like SC.

SC would never make a good art museum. It would require a huge and very expensive retrofit. Just the lighting and HVAC requirements alone would be very expensive. Contours of the theaters are not conducive to an art museum. And, as already posted, the threat of damage from flooding, etc. would have to be permanently eliminated.

The reality of this situation is starting to settle in as we have moved from the conceptual idea of it being demolished to knowing it's going to happen, and likely soon.


I'm sure once we see the plans people will start to think it terms of moving forward.

As I. M. Pei once said almost verbatim.

I can only imagine how all those great works of art would look after the damage inflicted by the inevitable next flood or roof collapse or corresponding disaster to befall the place...

LOL!!!!!

money shot