The problem is that all those non-profit buildings have things for people to do inside them. If Stage Center was fixed up who would use it? They asked the Arts community in OKC and all of them said, "Count us out".

First of all, that's not accurate. Not all arts organizations hate it.
"Count us out" does not equal hate. It simply means, No, that's not a venue we would choose to use.

The arts groups are frightened of it, as it sits, and have a difficult time imagining it not being a millstone around their respective necks. If a champion appeared out of thin air, one who would fund the renovation and long-term maintenance of the building, someone who would turn it into a showpiece, and who would guarantee to help fund their organizations, they would likely fall all over themselves in lining up to be tenants. Or if they didn't, other organizations would appear as if by magic, I promise you.
Don't take this as a challenge, but who? Who would want to use the Mummers Theater?

Opening Night 2009 (A few months before the flood)

Venue 3 – Stage Center


Arena Theatre

Everybody & Their Dog: 7:30, 8:30, 9:30

Tolbert Theatre

Edgar Cruz: 7, 8, 9, 10

Opening Night 2009 schedule | News OK (http://newsok.com/article/3822163)

Similar to many other Opening Nights.

How do you feel about the Marion Hotel?

Where it is located it makes more since to rehab and reconstruct.

Remember that one time when everybody thought tearing down the Biltmore hotel was a great idea. Obviously nobody does....

The low ceiling heights and plumbing built into the concrete would have made the Biltmore impossible to renovate into anything usable by modern regulations. The site became part of MBG. Sometime architects just out-think themselves and create structures that can't be used for anything else ever. I wish they wouldn't do it - but they do.

.

That place is a dump it should have been rehabbed or dozed by now.

Agreed.

Haha you're only making my argument for me. JTF, it's OK to say that you simply don't like Stage Center.

I don't like Stage Center.

So what you are trying to say is...

Eventually the Stage Center could become profitable, just as our other arts developments are? Excellent news!

No, I am saying you get someone to produce an economic report that says anything you want it to say.

Much like a feasibility report. A la Central Park Film Exchange or Sand Ridge campus demolitions. Come on, JTF. You're too smart to believe and regurgitate everything just because you see it in print.

The low ceiling heights and plumbing built into the concrete would have made the Biltmore impossible to renovate into anything usable by modern regulations. The site became part of MBG. Sometime architects just out-think themselves and create structures that can't be used for anything else ever. I wish they wouldn't do it - but they do.
http://www.ivygateblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/923-facepalm.gif

Pros & Cons: Stage Center's future takes center stage
http://m.newsok.com/pros-cons-stage-centers-future-takes-center-stage/article/3923845

Supporters seek to save Oklahoma City's Stage Center
http://m.newsok.com/supporters-seek-to-save-oklahoma-citys-stage-center/article/3923846

See, this still fascinates me. If this "landmark" is so beloved, why has it been so woefully neglected for so many years? If it is so beloved, why haven't its fanatics dedicated more effort to supporting it tangibly (with necessary financial resources and improvements)? If it's so precious, why has it taken its impending doom to get any measurable action/reaction?

Actions speak louder than words — in other words, the lack of effectual action in this "precious" landmark's recent history speaks much louder than the lamenting since the announcement of the property's sale months back.

I really don't care to see it saved because I find the building to be hideous. It has absolutely nothing to do with not enjoying unique things. The building is just flat ugly and I would like to see something more attractive there. It looks like we have a proposal for something more attractive so it can be razed.

However, that all being said, shame on Williams for not selecting one of the multitude of vacant lots that dot our downtown landscape.

See, this still fascinates me. If this "landmark" is so beloved, why has it been so woefully neglected for so many years? If it is so beloved, why haven't its fanatics dedicated more effort to supporting it tangibly (with necessary financial resources and improvements)? If it's so precious, why has it taken its impending doom to get any measurable action/reaction?

Actions speak louder than words — in other words, the lack of effectual action in this "precious" landmark's recent history speaks much louder than the lamenting since the announcement of the property's sale months back.

It's easy. Those that want it saved want our money to save it. Even if we don't like the building. The few far out weigh the many. If you haven't learned that in this PC world, you never will. I dint want my tax money going to that building. It already costs a 100k a month just to keep hobos out. How much will it cost to reconstruct and up keep? Far too much, in my opinion. Heck, I live art. That building just isn't art to me. It's an eye site that needs to go.

I've seen this said a lot -


However, that all being said, shame on Williams for not selecting one of the multitude of vacant lots that dot our downtown landscape.

This is all about location. If any lot would have worked, he'd gone elsewhere, and probably pay a smaller price with much less trouble.....

The equivolent location would be just to the South of California on this block.

The ENTIRE issue is the location.


See, this still fascinates me. If this "landmark" is so beloved, why has it been so woefully neglected for so many years?

So many years = 3 years????

The ENTIRE issue is the location.



So many years = 3 years????
It's 2014. 5 years. But, before it's restoration in 2009 how long was it ran down?

It already costs a 100k a month just to keep hobos out.

I believe that figure quoted was per year wasn't it? I bet that included property taxes, which might be the majority of it. What else, assuming the utilities have all been shut off, mowing the lawn, replacing a piece of plywood every now and then and some liability insurance if they have any?

Yeah, the poster writing 100K monthly likely misunderstood something he read. IIRC, that was an annual amount being spent by the Foundation after it was shuttered in 2010.

That's still a lot of cash for a charitable foundation that could use every dollar to burn... oh well, guess it's Rainey burning it now...

It's a ton of cash. Therein lies one of the problems with any art org owning or using any real estate. It can be really expensive.

See, this still fascinates me. If this "landmark" is so beloved, why has it been so woefully neglected for so many years? If it is so beloved, why haven't its fanatics dedicated more effort to supporting it tangibly (with necessary financial resources and improvements)? If it's so precious, why has it taken its impending doom to get any measurable action/reaction?

Actions speak louder than words — in other words, the lack of effectual action in this "precious" landmark's recent history speaks much louder than the lamenting since the announcement of the property's sale months back.

Because there AREN'T any fanatics. For whatever reason, it has never resonated with the community. And there STILL isn't any measurable action. That doesn't mean that the building is not important architecturally; just that it isn't important to the people who matter or could have made a difference in OKC.

It's easy. Those that want it saved want our money to save it. Even if we don't like the building. The few far out weigh the many. If you haven't learned that in this PC world, you never will. I dint want my tax money going to that building. It already costs a 100k a month just to keep hobos out. How much will it cost to reconstruct and up keep? Far too much, in my opinion. Heck, I live art. That building just isn't art to me. It's an eye site that needs to go.

Where has anyone seriously suggested using tax dollars to preserve it? Way to try to turn it red/blue political. And if you think it costs $100K a month to keep the hobos out, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Whether you or I think it is an important building architecturally doesn't really make any difference, by the way. Sorry to disappoint you. That issue was decided by the American Institute of Architects and the Museum of Modern Art 40 years ago.

If you insist on talking about art - though I would point out that this is not art, it is architecture - like I have pointed out previously, Warhol's works were hated by many contemporaries, and still disliked by many. Most of the French Impressionists were initially reviled in the Paris Salons of their day, and some died penniless. A century later, most people finally have an appreciation for what they were trying to create. Parents and critics alike hated Elvis. They burned his records publicly. It was just offensive noise, right? The Devil's music? Huckleberry Finn has been banned in some school systems in the United States during our own lifetimes. Whether or not an occasional person or even a lot of people dislike something doesn't render it worthless or unimportant; I'm sorry. Again, your opinion (and mine) make little difference here.

But, AGAIN, the ultimate decision-making power resided with the community over the past 40 years, and the community has been pretty resolute in deciding that they didn't REALLY want it here. So it comes down.

Yeah, the poster writing 100K monthly likely misunderstood something he read. IIRC, that was an annual amount being spent by the Foundation after it was shuttered in 2010.

Truth be told - the building opened and closed several times over its life span. It has not been in continual use from 1971 to 2010.

The History and Downfall of Stage Center | KOSU Radio (http://kosu.org/2012/09/the-history-and-downfall-of-stage-center/)

The low ceiling heights and plumbing built into the concrete would have made the Biltmore impossible to renovate into anything usable by modern regulations. The site became part of MBG. Sometime architects just out-think themselves and create structures that can't be used for anything else ever. I wish they wouldn't do it - but they do.http://www.ivygateblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/923-facepalm.gif

That was almost a direct quote from Steve who asked several developers if the Biltmore was around today would it be viable for redevelopment. The answer was no.

Found the story - you can read it for yourself.

http://newsok.com/looking-back-at-the-biltmore-hotel/article/3470180

From the article:


But the Oklahoma Theatre Center didn’t make it either, and the building again closed in the eighties.

Many things in OKC closed in the oil bust of the '80s.

Closings:

Mummers went broke.

Oil Bust.

Flood.

Did that miss anything?

From the article:



Many things in OKC closed in the oil bust of the '80s.

Closings:

Mummers went broke.

Oil Bust.

Flood.

Did that miss anything?

That might about sum it up. It would be interesting to know if it has been closed more years than it has been open. My guess is that it has been open more years but I'll bet it is close.

Up thread I gave you a list where performances were held there every year for the last couple of decades leading up to the flood. A couple of lists actually. I know you and some people want to think it was empty and abandoned for years but that's a false picture. It was not used to full potential, like something going on there constantly in the performance spaces year round, day after day. It has been used regularly.

I don't think that says as much about the architecture as it says about support and appetite for some of the arts in OKC over time.

That was almost a direct quote from Steve who asked several developers if the Biltmore was around today would it be viable for redevelopment. The answer was no.

Found the story - you can read it for yourself.

Looking Back at the Biltmore Hotel | News OK (http://newsok.com/looking-back-at-the-biltmore-hotel/article/3470180)

You and I apparently read that article differently.

“Huge challenges” =/= “Impossible”.

The facepalm was mainly on the 2nd part of the post anyways...

At 600 rooms, it might have made a nice convention center hotel, and it would have been in the right location! :-P

At 600 rooms, it might have made a nice convention center hotel, and it would have been in the right location! :-P

Probably 400 rooms after modernization, but yea.

You and I apparently read that article differently.

“Huge challenges” =/= “Impossible”.



Ditto

At 600 rooms, it might have made a nice convention center hotel, and it would have been in the right location! :-P

Off topic but my dream is for Marriott, to build a JW Marriott, as a Biltmore replica! How amazing would that be?!

Off topic but my dream is for Marriott, to build a JW Marriott, as a Biltmore replica! How amazing would that be?!

It would be "folly" to build a replica! JK -- dream on.

Off topic but my dream is for Marriott, to build a JW Marriott, as a Biltmore replica! How amazing would that be?!

As cool as it would be to have a Biltmore replica downtown somewhere, it probably wouldn't fit in with a modern CC design and being next to the arena, effectively in the "new" part of downtown at that point.

You and I apparently read that article differently.

“Huge challenges” =/= “Impossible”.

The facepalm was mainly on the 2nd part of the post anyways...

Fair enough.

As cool as it would be to have a Biltmore replica downtown somewhere, it probably wouldn't fit in with a modern CC design and being next to the arena, effectively in the "new" part of downtown at that point.

I wasn't suggesting it be the CC hotel, just a general pipe dream haha, I think it'd best fit in, in Bricktown. I want an Omni or W for the CC hotel.

It would be "folly" to build a replica! JK -- dream on.

No, it would be folly to build an exact replica from scratch of something that didn't work in the first place or that likely wouldn't work today. A brick-for-brick rebuild of the Biltmore, with the exact same low ceilings and small rooms that would in turn guarantee failure or at the very least extreme challenges? Folly. Rebuilding an exact replica of a performing arts center that has failed to attract and maintain a tenant, an audience and benefactor(s)? Folly. Adaptive re-use of an existing structure, including reconfiguration to meet modern needs (a la Skirvin)? Smart. Too bad it didn't happen with the Biltmore. Wish it could happen with Stage Center, but that is unlikely.

Now, a new, modern hotel with design flourishes that pay tribute to a once-nearby but now gone historic structure? There's nothing wrong with that. The ballpark in Bricktown is a reasonably good example of this. However, HP guidelines would tell you that attempting to make it indistinguishable from the historic is not recommended. A building is either historic, or it is not.

If we built a new performing arts center someday and the architect wanted to make a few stylistic nods to Stage Center? Great. Admirable, even. But rebuilding an exact replica of a demolished Stage Center = silly.