Stage Center

[hoya]

Most kids don't care about architecture and that is the fundamental problem with this proposal. A children's museum should be about kids, not about saving a building from a wrecking ball. As I said earlier, it is too bad an otherwise noble cause is being subjugated to saving a building. OKC could easily build a world class Children's Museum for half the cost of just getting stage center in good enough condition to have the orange warning sticker taken off the doors. It is such a shame that money in this instance would be spent on concrete and sheet metal instead of hands on activities for the children the whole projected is supposedly being done for. I hate to use the term 'human shield', especially when discussing children, but this seems to be getting pretty close to it in my view.

With all the vacant land around downtown wouldn't it make much more sense to build from the ground up, have a better facility, and save $20 million in the process?

It ain't my money. If some guy wants to spend 30 mil to fix up Stage Center, more power to him. It doesn't hurt me. It doesn't matter what you or I would spend our money on. I'm not going to begrudge them the chance to fix it up if they can find some rich person who wants to spend money on this project.

The last time I was in Stage Center, I was a little kid. I think we went on a field trip there or something. Maybe I've never been in it. I do remember running up and down the ramps when I was about 9 or 10. Maybe we went inside. It would have still been open then. It seemed like some big jungle gym or something. I think kids would like it. It's fun and different and ugly as hell, but kids wouldn't care about that. It looks like something designed to be played on.

As far as investments go, there's a spectrum. On the one end, you have "spend all the money on a new children's museum". On the other end, you have "save Stage Center". It's entirely possible that at some point in between, you inspire an investor. "Build a children's museum AND save this big weird thing? Sold!" It doesn't necessarily matter that it's not the most efficient way to do it. If that's what their pet millionaire wants, then shine on you crazy diamond.

[ljbab728]

[QUOTE=betts;513664]You can do anything to an interior. Dark and depressing can become light and airy with the right lighting and wall coverings.[QUOTE]

Agreed, betts. As someone who attended events there during it's heyday, I promise the interior never seemed dark or depressing. I actually found it rather inspiring.

[Just the facts]

It ain't my money. If some guy wants to spend 30 mil to fix up Stage Center, more power to him. It doesn't hurt me.

That is where we differ. I think the large setbacks at Stage Center do in fact hurt the area around it.

[betts]

That is where we differ. I think the large setbacks at Stage Center do in fact hurt the area around it.

I don't see a lot of evidence that anything that has happened at Stage Center has hurt the area around it, which includes the new Myriad Gardens, the Devon Tower, the plans for a new school, the Convention Center, the Boulevard. And, again, I think the playfulness of the Stage Center design perfectly complements both the Myriad Gardens and an elementary school. Any outdoor landscaping/sculptures that would add to the whimsy would make that area a visual relief to the CBD.

[Just the facts]

Stage Center has been there for 40 years and it sure didn't spur any adjacent development during that time. All those other things you mentioned are directly related to Larry Nichols, MAPS 4 Kids, and MAPS III. And it is pretty well documented that large setbacks discourage pedestrians.

[betts]

I'm not saying Stage Center encouraged development, but I don't see any evidence anything else downtown before Devon did either. And relandscaped and repurposed, the Stage Center could feel like an interactive sculpture within a park, and an extension of the Myriad Gardens, both inviting interaction from the school.

[Just the facts]

Even during the early 80s when downtown was booming the area around Stage Center never saw any development. All new construction was concentrated near the existing buildings. Personally I would like to see Stage Center moved to Central Park.

[BDP]

Most kids don't care about architecture and that is the fundamental problem with this proposal.

My son loves it and the number one thing he does with his legos is build skyscrapers. He is also infatuated with the Devon tower. Kids love this stuff actually.

I also remember that my favorite part about going there when I was a kid was the building itself. Not because it was unique and not because of its outer aesthetic. The layout of the building just begs to be explored. IMO, it also felt exactly like a kids building. It's more like on overgrown structure that some kid might build in his backyard than it is something adults can appreciate, as you can see here. We're the ones who like symmetry and familiarity. Kids are the ones who are attracted to the new and different.

I think the children's museum is a great idea, but I 100% realize it is probably not feasible. However, unlike how Soonerdave feels about it, I think the most idiotic thing would be to sink $30 million dollars into an entirely new structure for a kids museum when that money could be spent on bringing this building into service. Honestly, I think it's a building that kids actually enjoy for the building itself. At least, that's how it was for me. Compared to the to the science museum it's a venerable wonderland on its own.

[Just the facts]

That is just the thing BDP - an entirely new structure would be way south of $30 million. The entire Aloft hotel in Deep Deuce is only $18 million.

[Pete]

Obviously, anybody who contributes a large sum would be at least as interested in preserving the structure as establishing a museum.

The museum would just be a mechanism to save and restore the building.


This whole thing started with "How can we save Stage Center?" rather than "What is the best way to establish a children's museum?"

Perhaps the only way for both goals to be achieved is to combine them. Not sure either will happen without the other.

[Just the facts]

Obviously, anybody who contributes a large sum would be at least as interested in preserving the structure as establishing a museum.

The museum would just be a mechanism to save and restore the building.


This whole thing started with "How can we save Stage Center?" rather than "What is the best way to establish a children's museum?"

Perhaps the only way for both goals to be achieved is to combine them. Not sure either will happen without the other.

What about the Rock Island building in Bricktown? Surely it can be rehabed for less than $30 million and it has a parking lot.

[krisb]

If I were a kid I would have more fun in a colorful spaceship looking thing than an old brick warehouse. But that's just me.

[Pete]

What about the Rock Island building in Bricktown? Surely it can be rehabed for less than $30 million and it has a parking lot.

I think you are missing a very fundamental point: There are a bunch of people with specific interest in saving the Stage Center building. There have been no "save the Rock Island Plow Building" groups formed and it's also under no immediate threat to be demolished.

This isn't about other buildings or sites... It's about trying to find a way to save the Stage Center. It's why RFP's were sent out soliciting ideas.

Again, the museum just seems like the most feasible mechanism to save the building and also could provide at least a decent venue for that use.


There might not be the love for Stage Center as compared to the Skirvin, but it was a similar process in that it started with the idea of how to save the building, not just to bring another hotel downtown. Clearly, there were lots of other sites and cheaper options for that.

[Just the facts]

This isn't about other buildings or sites... It's about trying to find a way to save the Stage Center. It's why RFP's were sent out soliciting ideas.

Again, the museum just seems like the most feasible mechanism to save the building and also could provide at least a decent venue for that use.

Like I said, that is the problem. The Children's museum is essentially a human shield. I mean, who can oppose a Children's Museum? An otherwise good cause has to save the building first. Those resources would be better spent going to the museum itself.

[Pete]

I would suggest you only feel that way because you don't want the building saved.

If you did (like the people trying to make this happen) you'd see it as great opportunity to accomplish two good things.


You are certainly not alone in wanting the building gone but you need to respect the fact that lots of people are passionate about saving it and that doesn't make their motives bad.

Also, I'm sure whoever ends up putting up the funding will be sold as much on the building as the museum. If there was such a drive for a chidren's museum it would have happened by now... At the very least Stage Center has brought the idea to the forefront.

[BDP]

That is just the thing BDP - an entirely new structure would be way south of $30 million. The entire Aloft hotel in Deep Deuce is only $18 million.

Very true. Of course, the Aloft isn't going to be a unique structure nor is it really trying to be. Sure, it's way better than the Residence Inn, but its type of modern is everywhere.

Either way, I totally get it. Stage Center is probably a lost cause. There's just not that much money in this city and what there is of it isn't interested in stuff like this. I genuinely like Stage Center, but even more than that, I think I just get tired of how nothing is economically worth saving here, yet it works in so many other places. I think if we were good at saving things and people did care about restoring things here, it would be easier to swallow. It just seems like different day, same dismissive approach to structures of significance in the city. With everything that has been positive in the last ten years, this keeps happening to remind us that we still don't have a city worth saving.

[Just the facts]

I would suggest you only feel that way because you don't want the building saved.

You are semi-right about that. It should be saved - just not at that location. I would fully support spending $30 million to move it to Central Park and re-opening it as a Children's Museum. Selling the land it is on could fund the move and the donations could be used to create the museum.

[Pete]

^

That is not realistic and there hasn't been any consideration of that option.


The bottom line is that building is either going to be saved by this children's museum idea or it's going to get demolished.

[Pete]

Stage Center is probably a lost cause. There's just not that much money in this city and what there is of it isn't interested in stuff like this. I genuinely like Stage Center, but even more than that, I think I just get tired of how nothing is economically worth saving here, yet it works in so many other places. I think if we were good at saving things and people did care about restoring things here, it would be easier to swallow. It just seems like different day, same dismissive approach to structures of significance in the city. With everything that has been positive in the last ten years, this keeps happening to remind us that we still don't have a city worth saving.

If this building isn't saved, I won't see it as confirmation that nobody cares about any building; just that not enough people cared about this particular one.


Yes, we have a horrible past when it comes to these things but if you haven't noticed, so do most other cities. Urban renewal of the 60's and 70's is also greatly simplified in these discussions because most don't understand why it happened in the first place. The reason so many places were torn down is because they had been abandoned for a very long time and huge areas -- often immediately adjacent to the CDB -- were completely blighted. Clearing blocks at least cleaned up the area which was the most that could be hoped for at that time -- and why it was allowed to happen in the first place.

The people, shopping, movie theaters and streetcars were all long gone before any of this came to pass; urban renewal was the result of people leaving downtown not the cause of it.


Anyway, it's certainly true we need to scrutinize every structure before pulling it down. But there are literally thousands of older buildings that are still standing, many renovated at much greater expense than new construction, so that's direct evidence that lots of people care.


I think in most cases much is done to preserve buildings but that doesn't not guarantee -- nor should it -- that every single building will be saved. And when one or two aren't, it doesn't mean we haven't learned a lot from the past.

[Just the facts]

To echo Pete' comment. Urban renewal of the 70s was not the problem. It was urban flight in the late 40s and 50s brought on by GI home loans and the automobile that left most urban America vacant and allowed concentration of the poor and under-class.

[Urbanized]

A friend of mine (another former Main Street Manager, now a state senator in Missouri) said the downfall of the urban neighborhood could be traced to three main things: the automobile, television, and refrigerated air.

[Just the facts]

Ironically, I think the resurgence in urban living is due in part to Friends and Seinfeld that reintroduced the concept to America.

[Pete]

If somebody really wants a scapegoat, it was our government that colluded with the auto and oil industries to build roads and highways and kill the streetcar. I'm sure that seemed like a great idea at the time.

To illustrate the massive influence of autos & oil, just take a look at Canada and Australia; two young countries with much less density and yet their cities and suburbs grew in such a way that mass transit and people never left the central core. Why? Because they weren't trying to feed these big industries and things just gradually evolved in a pretty orderly fashion.

Really, the United States is alone in this ridiculous sprawl problem and cars & oil are why.

[Urbanized]

If somebody really wants a scapegoat, it was our government that colluded with the auto and oil industries to build roads and highways and kill the streetcar. I'm sure that seemed like a great idea at the time.

To illustrate the massive influence of autos & oil, just take a look at Canada and Australia; two young countries with much less density and yet their cities and suburbs grew in such a way that mass transit and people never left the central core. Why? Because they weren't trying to feed these big industries and things just gradually evolved in a pretty orderly fashion.

Really, the United States is alone in this ridiculous sprawl problem and cars & oil are why.

Yeah, housing starts and automobile sales still touted as key economic indicators to this day. Hence the GI Bill-era mortgage restrictions on multifamily. Like you said, I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time. I don't think it was a nefarious conspiracy, but a conspiracy nonetheless. Law of unintended consequences.

[Pete]

All that crazy growth was seen as an outward sign of prosperity, which became even more important during the Cold War.

And unfortunately, this way of thinking is still ingrained in the American culture and we can't seem to shake it. For every urban pioneer there are thousands that move further and further out, living in bigger and bigger homes and driving bigger and bigger cars.

In one generation, virtually all the people I went to high school with moved from NW OKC to very far North OKC, Edmond or Deer Creek.


A few years ago, I took an informal poll of about 200 people on a message board similar to this and discovered that the average amount of square footage per person in their present home was FOUR TIMES what it was when they were kids. And I bet the average commute has increased almost as much.