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.

It's sad that manipulation and social engineering an entire city is seemingly accepted as business as usual.

It's sad that we are so quick on this site to impugn someone's integrity without knowing all of the details of a story.

It's sad that we are so quick on this site to impugn someone's integrity without knowing all of the details of a story.

Agree

It's sad that manipulation and social engineering an entire city is seemingly accepted as business as usual.
Nothing new, it is something that has been done in every "civilization" in some form or another throughout the history of time.

What is sad is people don't care about something until it is about to be torn down, instead they let it languish for twenty years until an alternate use for the site looks ready to happen. The fact is Stage Center was a poor functional design from the outset, that is why it hasn't been resurrected by theater companies since. But then I am much more on making sure a building works for its intended purpose rather than making the intended purpose fit into a building, if it doesn't work for its intended purpose it is a bad design and merely a sculpture.

From my memories of the interior of Stage Center...I think it *might* be useful as an urban paintball course. Or a hide-and-seek funhouse.

It's cool and quirky, but I don't think I'll miss it much.

From my memories of the interior of Stage Center...I think it *might* be useful as an urban paintball course. Or a hide-and-seek funhouse.

It's cool and quirky, but I don't think I'll miss it much.

Laser Tag...

It could serve as a mechanical yard for the tower....cleverly disguised. :)

It's fair to say that businesses and individuals use all types of means to at least temporarily conceal the true ownership or longer terms plans of a real estate deal.

Remember that Continental's purchase of 20 N. Broadway was held in the name of Ford Price, Chesapeake kept changing the names of LLC's during it's crazy acquisition period, Tom Ward & family used an LLC to purchase the property at 4th & Broadway -- at least we believe they are the ones behind the LLC, we don't know for sure. And we are pretty darn sure Devon is behind Nick Preftakes.

Common practice and by no means is it unethical.


Even if Rainey Williams is serving a similar role here (and I don't necessarily think that is the case) that is not a bad reflection on him, OG&E or anyone else.

It's a common way of handling real estate for many reasons.

It's fair to say that business and individuals use all types of means to at least temporarily conceal the true ownership or longer terms plans of a real estate deal.

Remember that Continental's purchase of 20 N. Broadway was held in the name of Ford Price, Chesapeake kept changing the names of LLC's during it's crazy acquisition period, Tom Ward & family used an LLC to purchase the property at 4th & Broadway -- at least we believe they are the ones behind the LLC, we don't know for sure. And we are pretty darn sure Devon is behind Nick Preftakes.

Common practice and by no means is it unethical.


Even if Rainey Williams is serving a similar role here (and I don't necessarily think that is the case) that is not a bad reflection on him, OG&E or anyone else.

It's a common way of handling real estate for many reasons.

Yeah, it has very little to do with "taking the heat off". In these business people's view there is no support to save the Stage Center because no one ever pony up any money for it.

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.

Anecdotal at best, BS at worst. Come on, Rover.

Anecdotal at best, BS at worst. Come on, Rover.
I found it to be somewhat true in Austin, typically the "older" millennials had started doing more than just going to bars and started going to more of the art venues but usually only for a specific event (usually an AIA or IIDA function) but that would usually open them up to regular visits. The younger ones were still stuck on going to a bar and seeing a band. Arts is still usually the realm of older patrons, it just takes younger people awhile to open up to them. I do agree that the millennials do want more of those options even if they aren't attending them as regularly as the older crowd.

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.

I do think making California Street connect to Hudson would help make this development better.

Someone wanted to know what was on the Stage Center spot before it was built...

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/W%20Sheridan/21412M38261BarneyHillermanCollection-Photographs-Box8OKLAHOMAINDUSTRIALENTRANCECO400WGRANDAVEOKLAHO MACITYOKLAHOMAINDUSTRIALFINANCECOACCTPHOT.jpg

http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j286/UnFrSaKn/Old%20Oklahoma%20City/W%20Sheridan/oklahomaindustrialfinanceco.jpg

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.

Well said.

Anecdotal at best, BS at worst. Come on, Rover.

That's a pretty funny comment because of the claim of the original statement that millenials are more concerned about the arts. As if that wasnt anecdotal, if not just a casual opinion. I will stand by my claim and still challenge the millenials to show up and to give of their resources to support the arts.

Anecdotal at best, BS at worst. Come on, Rover.

The same could be said of the statement Rover was responding to.

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.

Rover is right. You will not see "millennials" at these places. Again, stage center was never really condusive to the local idea of "establishment" arts like the places Rover references are, and is why it could never survive in a city like this, or most cities, in the location where it was built. It was always way too high profile for its intended use. Oklahoma City has and will always have treasured local arts, it just won't be at this location or in the unique setting that it offered. Part of what made it different was that it was a great place for local talent to showcase its ability in a unique setting in the heart of a city. That's extremely rare and it now seems like gross hubris for a town like OKC to think it could do what the biggest of cities have trouble doing. We can't be expected to reach beyond a standard unachievable by greater peers.

I understand that my experiences at Stage Center were not only unique to OKC, but unique to most art communities. Usually, local art is economically and feasibly forced out of city centers, or at least out of the mainstream art centers. Stage Center was a facility that tried to go against that trend and unsurprisingly failed. It's unfortunate that so many people, even those that are active consumers of local art like Rover, never got to experience stage center as an innovative local theater facility, art museum, music venue, and gallery. Obviously, I can't convince anyone who never experienced it those ways that it excelled in all those capacities, but I saw it do all of that. So, I guess I can just count myself lucky that I got to see it that way and wait for the next amazing performed of Hedwig or the next production of Surburbia, or the next Momentum, or the next locally organized tribute to Prince that will inevitably take place in OKC and be well attended by "millennials" or whatever the next buzz word is for young creative individuals, knowing that it will just not be held in a high profile or center piece venue like a stage center.

And maybe that's okay. Bigger communities than ours usually cant pull that off. Not having a Stage Center will not prevent that from happening. It just means that it will happen in a far less descript setting like most everywhere else. Stage Center was a unique place because it offered the unexpected setting for the unexpected production in a city that was not expected to offer such efforts. Removing Stage Center from Oklahoma City's landscape will not prevent the works that were displayed there from being produced in Oklahoma City, it will just end Oklahoma City's potential ability from presenting those works in a way that cities twice its size wish they could do. We will, as intended and so desired, be more like somewhere else.

Bigger more sophisticated cities have never been jealous of us having this structure.

It sounds like some of the folks on this forum can't wait to get out the gasoline and torches and do away with this building in a drunken arson orgy. Strange.

The same could be said of the statement Rover was responding to.
Absolutely agree.

The more I think about this, the more I am starting to side with those who want to see it saved. There are numerous lots to build a tower but there is only one Stage Center. I am certain this will be a demolition OKC looks back on in 20 or 30 years as another pivotal mistake. Save it, renovate it, and make it into a tourist attraction that can be to OKC what the arch is to St. Louis or the Space Needle is to Seattle.

The more I think about this, the more I am starting to side with those who want to see it saved. There are numerous lots to build a tower but there is only one Stage Center. I am certain this will be a demolition OKC looks back on in 20 or 30 years as another pivotal mistake. Save it, renovate it, and make it into a tourist attraction that can be to OKC what the arch is to St. Louis or the Space Needle is to Seattle.

I don't think Stage Center can ever be on the same level as the St. Louis Arch or Seattle's Space Needle. That got me thinking though, it would be awesome to have some kind of uniquely-shaped observation deck structure at the end of the Core to Shore park. People on here have suggested having something at the southern end of the park as a destination. There would be great views of the river, the park, and downtown.

The more I think about this, the more I am starting to side with those who want to see it saved. There are numerous lots to build a tower but there is only one Stage Center. I am certain this will be a demolition OKC looks back on in 20 or 30 years as another pivotal mistake. Save it, renovate it, and make it into a tourist attraction that can be to OKC what the arch is to St. Louis or the Space Needle is to Seattle.

Run an experiment....go to L.A. Show 100 people a picture of SC. See how many recognize it. How many can tell you it is in OKC. Then do the same with the Needle or Arch. Hmmm. Wonder if SC is even in the same neighborhood. LOL.

If SC isn't iconic to OKC now after all these years, then it is doubtful it ever will be.

Stage Center is a weird little building.

It's not very good at staying unflooded, or at producing money, or at keeping a tenant. But it sure is interesting to look at.

Having looked at now hundreds of pictures of old buildings that used to be downtown that we tore down for other projects, I can't say I'm excited to see Stage Center go. It's a weird little building, but I keep thinking about all those great buildings we used to have, and wonder what would have happened had we kept them around? If we don't tear it down, maybe in 20 years Stage Center would find a use and be a unique gem that exists in no other city on Earth. Or maybe in 20 years it will fall in on itself.

That said, it is put up or shut up time. This time next year, Stage Center will be a memory. The people who care about it must do something right now. What it sounds like right now is that people care enough to bitch, but they don't care enough to actually do something. To save it, you're going to need public funds and the city will have to buy it and restore it, because no crazy billionaires look like they are going to swoop in and buy it.

I walk past Stage Center every day on my way to work. I have had the chance to look at it quite a bit over the last few years. I still don't know if I like its big, weird, spaceship design. I don't know if I'm going to miss it. I may miss the idea of it more than I miss the actual building. I won't miss the homeless people who crowd around it like its some great beckoning monolith.

Run an experiment....go to L.A. Show 100 people a picture of SC. See how many recognize it. How many can tell you it is in OKC. Then do the same with the Needle or Arch. Hmmm. Wonder if SC is even in the same neighborhood. LOL.

If SC isn't iconic to OKC now after all these years, then it is doubtful it ever will be.

Wouldn't it be great if OKC did have a structure that actually was iconic? Wishful thinking.

Bigger more sophisticated cities have never been jealous of us having this structure.

Having been part of local production efforts and gallery showings in "bigger more sophisticated cities", I can only say that we would have killed for something like stage center. If anything, sc had a problem in that the theater could garner more attention than the production. Most community theaters are blank black rooms with 60 to 100 seats or so located in districts better known for the availability of vice than arts. A blank slate with a modest setting for the director is much more typical than what stage center was. SC was a challenge, no doubt. You had to rethink your typical idea of passive theater. Not easy and a lot to ask of a small market.

Most cities do not have anything like it to offer even well established community theater companies or local galleries. It's most unique feature was the ambition to put it in a place like Oklahoma City, where it isn't art unless a major benefactor sanctions it. It's purpose was to display works that are rarely supported outside of the immediate artist community, even in major markets. Obviously, not a good plan for OKC.

Comparing it to Fred Jones or OKCMOA or even lyric is specious. It was a place for local artists to showcas local art. In that sense it was an amazing facility that would be envied by almost all peer venues even in larger markets. It was special that OKC had it for awhile, but I can tell we agre that this was a bad market and a bad location for that experient.

Run an experiment....go to L.A. Show 100 people a picture of SC. See how many recognize it. How many can tell you it is in OKC. Then do the same with the Needle or Arch. Hmmm. Wonder if SC is even in the same neighborhood. LOL.

If SC isn't iconic to OKC now after all these years, then it is doubtful it ever will be.

This is a total red herring.

Wouldn't it be great if OKC did have a structure that actually was iconic? Wishful thinking.

I believe Tulsa is still planning to erect a giant bronze statue of a Native American, so there's that.

It is response to the supposition that this building is iconic or will be. It is not associated with OKC and not recognizable by those outside of OKC. It is not synonymous with OKC. The poster proposed that it someday could be if refurbed. I am saying I don't believe that to be likely. Which argument is a red herring?

It is response to the supposition that this building is iconic or will be. It is not associated with OKC and not recognizable by those outside of OKC. It is not synonymous with OKC. The poster proposed that it someday could be if refurbed. I am saying I don't believe that to be likely. Which argument is a red herring?

It's a red herring to suggest that something in oklahoma city, especially a community theater, must be internationally iconic to be worth keeping around.

If the only basis to prevent demolition of anything in Oklahoma City was its ability to be as recognizable as the St. Louis arch, the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Statue of Liberty, then no structure in this town is of any lasting value and this forum should basically shut down.

You could show 100 people in LA 100 pictures of 100 things in Oklahoma City, except maybe the memorial and get the same reaction as you would when including SC in the mix. This idea that SC has to stand up to the nation's most well known icons to have merit is just bizarre.

They say "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder". With that being said, I personally feel that SC is aesthetically unappealing with it's stained1970's concrete, plywood panels, cheap building materials does nothing to raise the bar for OKC. Face it, the building is no longer functional and is obsolete. It needs to come down. A brand shiny new tower in place is the best and highest use for this prime spot for the CBD.

Stage Center before Stage Center | News OK (http://newsok.com/stage-center-before-stage-center/article/3867416)

The more I think about this, the more I am starting to side with those who want to see it saved. There are numerous lots to build a tower but there is only one Stage Center. I am certain this will be a demolition OKC looks back on in 20 or 30 years as another pivotal mistake. Save it, renovate it, and make it into a tourist attraction that can be to OKC what the arch is to St. Louis or the Space Needle is to Seattle.

Please forward your funding plan - the plan owners and developers have been unable to devise for, what is it, 20 years now - to the new owner.

maybe they can save it in the form of a scale model in the lobby of the new buidling

There is a lot of good discussion here, but this discussion wouldn't even be happening, if Stage Center were usable. It'll take, what? $3M to make it usable? Without that $3M, it's expensive art taking up a LOT of real estate.

Okay,

From my inside source, things are ongoing, and the source feels good about everything coming to OKC. I promised I would not elabarate and get anyone in trouble. I will say there are provisions for Enogex folks from Tulsa coming to OKC......What does this tell you.... Sorry.

Okay,

From my inside source, things are ongoing, and the source feels good about everything coming to OKC. I promised I would not elabarate and get anyone in trouble. I will say there are provisions for Enogex folks from Tulsa coming to OKC......What does this tell you.... Sorry.

How about for Centerpoint employees from Houston coming to OKC?

If this turns out to be a 40 story tower like we had originally heard, I don't think there'll be too many tears shed over the loss of Stage Center. If we get a big tower and a new energy company than I think it is worth it. If it's a disappointing building smaller than Chase then it's probably not worth it.

If this turns out to be a 40 story tower like we had originally heard, I don't think there'll be too many tears shed over the loss of Stage Center. If we get a big tower and a new energy company than I think it is worth it. If it's a disappointing building smaller than Chase then it's probably not worth it.

I don't know, I think I side with JTF on this one. If the street level interaction is good and it's at least close to the height of chase, I think it's worth it.

There is a lot of good discussion here, but this discussion wouldn't even be happening, if Stage Center were usable. It'll take, what? $3M to make it usable? Without that $3M, it's expensive art taking up a LOT of real estate.

$3M isn't even close.

There is a lot of good discussion here, but this discussion wouldn't even be happening, if Stage Center were usable. It'll take, what? $3M to make it usable? Without that $3M, it's expensive art taking up a LOT of real estate.

It was like 20 to 30 million a few years ago if it to be rehabbed back to it's same use (need to add around 4.5 to 5 to buy it back as well), probably more if it is used for anything other use than a theater since the vast majority of space right now is stadium seating. Not sure if the last estimates had mold removal but since it has apparently continued to flood there is a decent chance that is going to add more to the cost.

How about for Centerpoint employees from Houston coming to OKC?

Comment was made that the drift was that some of those people (in Houston) were taking other jobs........

The buzz is certainly that Enogex/CenterPoint will be coming to OKC, even among the employees at both companies.

It's not a done deal but it looks good for OKC.

Run an experiment....go to L.A. Show 100 people a picture of SC. See how many recognize it. How many can tell you it is in OKC. Then do the same with the Needle or Arch. Hmmm. Wonder if SC is even in the same neighborhood. LOL.

If SC isn't iconic to OKC now after all these years, then it is doubtful it ever will be.

Another experiment to run... go to LA and show 100 people pictures, without signage, of the outside of Greenway Court, Asylum, Knightsbridge, and even the UCB. See how many recognize them. Then do the same with Stage Center in OKC.

Most people have no idea what the exterior of their local community theaters look like. Stage Center is an anomaly in that way. It is definitely more iconic within Oklahoma City than most community theaters are in most places.

Now if they're doing community theater at the needle or the arch that I was unaware of, then you may have a point.

It's a red herring to suggest that something in oklahoma city, especially a community theater, must be internationally iconic to be worth keeping around.

If the only basis to prevent demolition of anything in Oklahoma City was its ability to be as recognizable as the St. Louis arch, the Golden Gate Bridge, or the Statue of Liberty, then no structure in this town is of any lasting value and this forum should basically shut down.

You could show 100 people in LA 100 pictures of 100 things in Oklahoma City, except maybe the memorial and get the same reaction as you would when including SC in the mix. This idea that SC has to stand up to the nation's most well known icons to have merit is just bizarre.

The premise of the posting being referred to by me listed it as potentially iconic with the Space Needle in Seattle and the Arch in St. Louis. I didn't make the original comparison. Nor did I say that it should be torn down if it wasn't. The previous posting was supposing that saving it would create such an image of it and I called BS. You have to follow the chain of remarks and logic. Remarking my comments as being false implies the statement it is based on is false, WHICH IS MY POINT. Don't try to justify the expenditure to save it based on creating an icon. It hasn't been and won't be. But that doesn't mean it isn't worth saving for our own reasons.

I happen to like Stage Center. I don't find it ugly and I love the theater spaces inside. I did some theater in my youth and always enjoyed going to shows there. But the building is an albatross. It's just not economically viable without massive public subsidy. How do you make a community theater go when it has $40MM in overhead to cover before it ever buys rights to a script, builds a set or pays an actor? You can't. It just won't work. That's why most community theaters are in old warehouses. The house isn't big enough to do Broadway or other large shows that generate the gate to pay for the building. And, it's not just the $40MM in reno/repurchase. It's also the operating cost and losses that have to be funded. But, the money just isn't there. So it either sits empty and unrenovated or it gets removed for something else. This is not like tearing down a beautiful old building that has the potential to be a commercial success. SC hasn't been economically viable since it was built. I don't like it, but that's the truth.

Another experiment to run... go to LA and show 100 people pictures, without signage, of the outside of Greenway Court, Asylum, Knightsbridge, and even the UCB. See how many recognize them. Then do the same with Stage Center in OKC.

Most people have no idea what the exterior of their local community theaters look like. Stage Center is an anomaly in that way. It is definitely more iconic within Oklahoma City than most community theaters are in most places.

Now if they're doing community theater at the needle or the arch that I was unaware of, then you may have a point.

You've gone from red herring to strawman to bizarre with this argument. LOL.

The buzz is certainly that Enogex/CenterPoint will be coming to OKC, even among the employees at both companies.

It's not a done deal but it looks good for OKC.

With employee bases buzzing about it, I assume an announcement will come soon. The companies should want to control the information themselves instead of a free for all gossip which could hurt morale at one place or the other, or both.

Rover is right. You will not see "millennials" at these places. Again, stage center was never really condusive to the local idea of "establishment" arts like the places Rover references are, and is why it could never survive in a city like this, or most cities, in the location where it was built. It was always way too high profile for its intended use. Oklahoma City has and will always have treasured local arts, it just won't be at this location or in the unique setting that it offered. Part of what made it different was that it was a great place for local talent to showcase its ability in a unique setting in the heart of a city. That's extremely rare and it now seems like gross hubris for a town like OKC to think it could do what the biggest of cities have trouble doing. We can't be expected to reach beyond a standard unachievable by greater peers.

I understand that my experiences at Stage Center were not only unique to OKC, but unique to most art communities. Usually, local art is economically and feasibly forced out of city centers, or at least out of the mainstream art centers. Stage Center was a facility that tried to go against that trend and unsurprisingly failed. It's unfortunate that so many people, even those that are active consumers of local art like Rover, never got to experience stage center as an innovative local theater facility, art museum, music venue, and gallery. Obviously, I can't convince anyone who never experienced it those ways that it excelled in all those capacities, but I saw it do all of that. So, I guess I can just count myself lucky that I got to see it that way and wait for the next amazing performed of Hedwig or the next production of Surburbia, or the next Momentum, or the next locally organized tribute to Prince that will inevitably take place in OKC and be well attended by "millennials" or whatever the next buzz word is for young creative individuals, knowing that it will just not be held in a high profile or center piece venue like a stage center.

And maybe that's okay. Bigger communities than ours usually cant pull that off. Not having a Stage Center will not prevent that from happening. It just means that it will happen in a far less descript setting like most everywhere else. Stage Center was a unique place because it offered the unexpected setting for the unexpected production in a city that was not expected to offer such efforts. Removing Stage Center from Oklahoma City's landscape will not prevent the works that were displayed there from being produced in Oklahoma City, it will just end Oklahoma City's potential ability from presenting those works in a way that cities twice its size wish they could do. We will, as intended and so desired, be more like somewhere else.

Well said! Nothing special to see here...move along.

You've gone from red herring to strawman to bizarre with this argument. LOL.

I agree. It was stupid of me to think I could take the original bizarre "experiment" and make it better by putting it into proper context, especially when it seems most don't even consider Stage Center for what it was actually built.

OKC is what it is when it comes to innovative design and local arts. Stage Center's demise is just a reflection of that. The reality is that having it around never really changed anything. Again, the local art community was lucky that at one time there was a benefactor of small theater here that facilitated the construction of a community theater that, in that context, was ambitious for a lot of markets, let alone Oklahoma City.

Comment was made that the drift was that some of those people (in Houston) were taking other jobs........

I noticed that in June the President of Centerpoint's midstream division pulled his name from consideration for the MLP's CEO position, and then resigned from Centerpoint. That bodes well for OKC as well. That's one less Houstonophile trying to pull the company to his city.

Can anyone tell me when the last production was performed in Stage Center?

I noticed that in June the President of Centerpoint's midstream division pulled his name from consideration for the MLP's CEO position, and then resigned from Centerpoint. That bodes well for OKC as well. That's one less Houstonophile trying to pull the company to his city.

Also may mean he realized the new entity would be located in OKC and decided he didn't want to make that move.

Another thing to think about when making comparisons between knocking the stage center down and the urban renewal demolitions of the 60s and 70s. During urban renewal, the point was to tear old buildings down for future development and it was being orchestrated by the city. I wasn't there, so correct me if I'm wrong, but people weren't actively trying to save most of the buildings before they were demolished. People didnt spend years trying to raise money for a renovation or think of alternative uses for them, when in reality, most of the buildings would've still been completely functional as revenue generating properties with a renovation or left as is. With the exception of maybe the Biltmore, the city's goal all along was to knock those buildings down as part of the Pei Plan, which had a good deal of popular support.

Flash forward to today, people have spent years trying to make the stage center work and it has never been an efficiently functioning, revenue producing property. The recent floods over the last few years have added $30 million + to the price tag of making it generate any revenue again as a theater, which isn't practical, and much time/money has been invested toward finding an alternate use for it. Finally as the last alternative, the stage center has been sold to investors with a concrete plan to put a "world class" building on the site (yes i know, every doubter on this board doesn't think Williams has a concrete plan...no way would be have purchased the property and come out to the media without one, especially when he was inheriting the stage center and all the PR issues that go with it as well as the looming high demolition or renovation costs required to do anything with the property). I've seen this situation compared destroying land marks in the 60s and 70s quite a bit in various forums and it annoys me because the circumstances are completely different. Contrasting urban renewal, in this situation, the building wasn't slated for demolition without a pretty solid run at saving it.

Also may mean he realized the new entity would be located in OKC and decided he didn't want to make that move. ...or he could have been very upset about the Stage Center demolition and refused to be associated with the desecration of the work of art that is The Stage Center.

Hopefully, the diehard Houstonians ARE falling to the wayside moving the announcement closer. An OKC win.

...or he could have been very upset about the stage center demolition and refused to be associated with the desecration of the work of art that is the stage center.

hopefully, the diehard houstonians are falling to the wayside moving the announcement closer. An okc win.

haha.

Urban renewal of the 60's and 70's was based around the idea of clearing out large areas of blight in a way only a municipality can.

Big chunks of inner cities had become largely abandoned or at best occupied by an undesirable element and the momentum was more or less a downward spiral. Cities felt like they had to do something to make a big change and bring in developers who were willing to invest. And at the time, there was virtually zero private investment anywhere near downtown.

They also knew that making available a small amount of property wasn't going to do it either, as no one was going to build while being surrounded by really rough areas that were getting worse.

So, most American cities undertook massive projects to clear entire blocks and at least beat back the decay. The idea was to cut out the tumor, leave the healthy fabric and hope new development would follow public investment (The Myriad, Myriad Gardens, etc.). In this way, it was somewhat similar to our MAPS initiatives.

It's a misconception that urban renewal caused downtowns to die. They were already long dead with no sign of revival. Urban renewal was at least proactive and while it left scars, there is certainly no guarantee that any of the demolished buildings would be standing now anyway. Every week in OKC, a dilapidated structure is bulldozed because it has been neglected and/or vacant for a very long time. The old Hales Photography building on Broadway is a good example.


It's really too simplistic to vilify IM Pei or even our civic leaders at the time. EVERY city was doing something like this because they had to do something. You really have to understand the forces at work after WWII (the rise in prosperity, automobile, highway building, home ownership and the massive baby boom) to understand the bigger picture. And at that time, John Q. Citizen only saw the draw of the suburbs and the big step up in lifestyle they represented.

My parents were typical in this regard. We moved to OKC in 1962 from Milwaukee as my dad took a low-level management job where he had previously been blue collar. We had lived in an old, close-in neighborhood in Milwaukee but we landed near 63rd & Meridian in a brand new, 4 bedroom home on a 1/4 acre lot, purchased for $18,000 on a VA loan. In the then state-best Putnam City school district and we were right across the street from a brand new elementary school (Rollingwood). Pretty darn good for a guy who had been just recently driving a delivery truck.

At the same time, cities were not only struggling with blight, but racial issues that culminated in forced busing. That tended to drive even more people further out and fueled thousands of suburban (formerly rural) independent school districts.


What were cities to do? They were literally rotting in concentric circles radiating from the core. And the trend was accelerating.

Urban renewal at least provided hope. The Myriad opening was a big deal for OKC and gave our family a very rare reason to go downtown. The shopping and theaters had either completely left or were in pretty sketchy areas. And of course, we had nicer, newer, bigger shopping, entertainment and restaurants right in our own neighborhood.


If you want to point fingers, do so at the auto industry, the oil companies and the road building contractors. After WWII, the U.S. developed quite differently from other countries, even similarly young ones like Canada and Australia. And the reason is that they did not have those big industries to drive these landscape-altering changes.



And to get back to the topic here, the biggest difference between now and the old days of urban renewal is that any demolition now is almost always paired with specific development plans, and more often than not, it's driven by the private sector.

Can someone nail down the architect for this project? I am sure he has one by now, it would be hard to sign tenants to leases without some sort of design plan. Knowing the architect will tell us a lot about this project.

I don't know the architect but Williams obviously has one because he said they plan to reveal at least conceptual plans within 90 days.

And of course, he never would have bought the property without running a bunch of building scenarios through an architectural and engineering firm.

Can someone nail down the architect for this project? I am sure he has one by now, it would be hard to sign tenants to leases without some sort of design plan. Knowing the architect will tell us a lot about this project.

Or maybe part of the pitch would be that that the anchor tenant gets to have input on selecting the architect, that is, assuming that Williams is not just playing proxy in the whole thing.

Either way, those guys are pretty good at keeping secrets and this one has been CIA all the way.