Stage Center

[G.Walker]

[template=]
development
|category1=Arts District
|category2=Downtown
|category3=Current
|category4=
|
|project=Stage Center
|address=400 W. Sheridan
|status=empty - exploring options
|owner=OKC Community Foundation
|cost=
|architect=John Johansen, preservation by Rand Elliott
|start=
|finish=
|contractor=
|height=
|sq. feet=
|acerage=2.71
|other=
|
|image=
|
[/template]
Information & Latest News

Completed in 1970, this eccentric masterpiece has no obvious facades. Rather, it is made up of three major components connected by tubes and tunnels. Ramps, bridges, and ductwork at various levels, as well as the "boxes" for mechanical systems atop the structures, and the brightly colored painted steel have evoked terms like "Tinker Toy geometry" or "erector set" construction from the building's critics.

Still, this original work was recognized in 1972 with a national award from AIA and it is often cited as John M. Johansen's major work. In 1983, Stage Center, then the Oklahoma Theater Center, was recognized as one of the Ten Best Buildings in Oklahoma by the Oklahoma chapter of AIA.

In 1986 the Arts Council of Oklahoma City purchased the building, which it agreed to renovate and reopen as a theater. It houses two theaters (a 580 seat thrust stage theater and a theater in the round). The smallest of the three units serves as a cabaret, offices, and rehearsal space.

Links

County Assessor Record
AIA Stage Center site
Save Stage Center on Facebook
Gallery

[Architect2010]

I wouldn't think so.

I never went to the Stage Center as a child, do they still do field trips there? I dunno, I bet I'm a minority, but I really wouldn't care to see it go. Its architecture isn't that fascinating to me; stacked boxes and connectors that form an odd mish-mash of interesting, sure, but otherwise uninventive architecture that does not age well with time. I see the massive uptick in development in the general vicinity as even more a reason for it to go. That land is prime, as is the adjacent property to the south. The whole block to me is nothing but disposable architecture. The Stage Center though, in comparison to the rest of the block, is a lot more valuable I concede.

[FritterGirl]

Hey GW,

This thread may shed light on some things. The subject has already been discussed, albeit in a somewhat different context.

[MIKELS129]

I wouldn't think so.

I never went to the Stage Center as a child, do they still do field trips there? I dunno, I bet I'm a minority, but I really wouldn't care to see it go. Its architecture isn't that fascinating to me; stacked boxes and connectors that form an odd mish-mash of interesting, sure, but otherwise uninventive architecture that does not age well with time. I see the massive uptick in development in the general vicinity as even more a reason for it to go. That land is prime, as is the adjacent property to the south. The whole block to me is nothing but disposable architecture. The Stage Center though, in comparison to the rest of the block, is a lot more valuable I concede.

And your interested in Architecture???
The Stage Center is considered a globally significant building.

[MikeOKC]

About 5 years ago, I met a group of college architectural students from Houston who were here, specifically, to tour the building.

By the way, what was this when it opened - I'm thinking it was the Mummers Theatre - is that right?

edit: Yes, it was the Mummers. Found it at this site about its architectural significance. http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/o...n/theater.html

[Thundercitizen]

About 5 years ago, I met a group of college architectural students from Houston who were here, specifically, to tour the building.

By the way, what was this when it opened - I'm thinking it was the Mummers Theatre - is that right?

Yep.

[Spartan]

That's right Mike, Mummer's.

And your interested in Architecture???
The Stage Center is considered a globally significant building.

THIS. The Stage Center is absolutely an architectural jewel. Love or hate its architecture, or in my case both, there's no denying its significance. Its architect, Philip Johansson (sp?) was one of the leaders if not THE leader of brutalist architecture. I think the Stage Center is actually one of the few examples of brutalist that is actually attractive, probably ONLY because of its colored boxes. Maybe that doesn't make it true brutalism, though?

[FritterGirl]

THIS. The Stage Center is absolutely an architectural jewel. Love or hate its architecture, or in my case both, there's no denying its significance. Its architect, Philip Johansson (sp?) was one of the leaders if not THE leader of brutalist architecture. I think the Stage Center is actually one of the few examples of brutalist that is actually attractive, probably ONLY because of its colored boxes. Maybe that doesn't make it true brutalism, though?

Actually it was John M. Johansen. Here's a WIKI article on him. Here's another article about Stage Center (Mummers Theatre) history.

[UnFrSaKn]

Interesting read on the Mechanic Theater by John M. Johansen. They're turning it from one of the "World's Top Ten Ugliest Buildings" into this highrise of mixed retail, residential, hotel space, and underground parking.

Link

[Architect2010]

And your interested in Architecture???
The Stage Center is considered a globally significant building.

Not really. I used to think I wanted to be an architect when I was a child.

I don't like the Stage Center and I never have. I thought I'd be in the minority and I was right. I just don't think the Stage Center, as it is designed, belongs downtown. I think maybe another part of the city mght have been more appropriate.

On another note, I'd actually like to see that whole block between Walker and Hudson and Sheridan and Reno to be acquired and developed for a park's edge development some day. So, maybe my OKC Masterplan dreams have given me bias. ;]

[onthestrip]

To me, the form could be considered interesting and significant but the function of the building seems awful.

[Twain427]

While I feel the overall design of SC is far from aesthetically pleasing, it is unique and has significant history in Oklahoma City. Thus, it's removal really shouldn't even be considered.

So, does the Arts Council leave it alone? Should the concrete and various cubes and tubes be painted? I think all would agree something needs to happen with it. With surrounding areas and structures quickly being renovated and renewed, this structure is really beginning to show its age and associated issues.

[CaseyCornett]

I really like the Stage Center and want it to stay.
I don't think I like it enough to spend $30 million on it to "get it up to speed" though.
It's a great "break" from the rest of downtown while on a walk. The building (inside) is fascinating and I hope all the issues get repaired soon.

[kevinpate]

I really like the Stage Center and want it to stay.
I don't think I like it enough to spend $30 million on it to "get it up to speed" though.
...

Maybe it is just me, but that would be a way better use of 30M than messing with that substation. Probably not possible to reallocate though since the substation talk involved M3 money.

[David Pollard]

I actually performed in a high school play in the Mummers Theatre way back in the late 70's. The building and the entire experience was phenomenal. Granted it may be out of date now, but this is the crucial point at which we say: 'This is an important structure that deserves to be saved and restored, no matter what the costs', or 'tear the carbuncle down and do away with our history'. OK, I am exaggerating, but OKC does not have the best record on preserving relics from its short yet fascinating past (read Sandridge).

On a positive note, the building could indeed be 're-purposed', maybe great and top-quality dinner theatre, outdoor cafe's in the garden area, or even a top-quality retail experience, but the exterior should be preserved.

Does anyone know if this building is listed as a historical monument or if there are plans to do so?

[earlywinegareth]

You know, it's surprising to me the building was not included in previous MAPS. Is it not owned by the city? I've heard it leaks like a sonuvagun when it rains, whatever that is.

[Pete]

Here's more about the structure:



Completed in 1970, this eccentric masterpiece has no obvious facades. Rather, it is made up of three major components connected by tubes and tunnels. Ramps, bridges, and ductwork at various levels, as well as the "boxes" for mechanical systems atop the structures, and the brightly colored painted steel have evoked terms like "Tinker Toy geometry" or "erector set" construction from the building's critics.

Still, this original work was recognized in 1972 with a national award from AIA and it is often cited as John M. Johansen's major work. In 1983, Stage Center, then the Oklahoma Theater Center, was recognized as one of the Ten Best Buildings in Oklahoma by the Oklahoma chapter of AIA.

In 1986 the Arts Council of Oklahoma City purchased the building, which it agreed to renovate and reopen as a theater. It houses two theaters (a 580 seat thrust stage theater and a theater in the round). The smallest of the three units serves as a cabaret, offices, and rehearsal space.

[benman]

That piece of crap needs to be bulldozed and the land used to build something that is useful and good looking.

[USG'60]

With no taste, I am glad you have no authority.

[Spartan]

That piece of crap needs to be bulldozed and the land used to build something that is useful and good looking.

This is scary to read.

[OKCisOK4me]

I think if Stage Center was to be a morsel of food on my tongue, I'd spit it out as if allergic to it. Not a fan and would rather see this piece of land developed into residential or something along those lines. It's a valuable piece of property.

[Spartan]

I like to call this architectural populism. It's fine and dandy and all, but I will stand up against populism when it threatens to murder a cherished structure for being different.

And I've long-thought that the trees in front of it need to be removed. The trees are eyesores. I would be for trees that are placed with the purpose of creating some definition or providing shade for the sidewalk, etc. By all means, plant trees around the periphery in a nice organized line, but these trees were clearly placed there to sort of "cover" the Stage Center up, as legend has it. They also detract from the architecture because they are scraggly trees haphazardly placed in front of the building. They don't create or reinforce spacial definition, they work against it. Oh the horror...

[Pete]

We have absolutely acres of other property that needs to be developed in the immediate vicinity.

Appreciate it or not, the building represents significant architecture and design and should and will be renovated with time.

[SoonerDave]

Sorry, but I guess I'm among the unenlightened plebes who think its an eyesore. I remember vividly when it opened as the Mummers back when I was a kid, and kept wondering why they didn't finish it. To each his own, but what I don't get is why is someone implicitly lacking in taste or intelligence (or whatever) if they think the thing is ugly? Because they don't agree with some self-appointed cognoscenti? Alas...

[Spartan]

We have absolutely acres of other property that needs to be developed in the immediate vicinity.

Appreciate it or not, the building represents significant architecture and design and should and will be renovated with time.

Pete, in a city that has senselessly demolished so many other countless treasures, how can you be so sure? Especially as demo is becoming more and more rampant and popular. When Downtown OKC really gets going, as history has shown in both the 60s, the 80s, and now today, there is this tendency for landmarks to disappear and be replaced with parking lots and forgettable built environments.

By the way, would anyone care to guess what highly-coveted architectural prize the Stage Center is the ONLY Oklahoma building to ever win?