Stage Center

[Spartan]

Hoya, your reasoning is still off. First of all, the outlet mall was not built anywhere near Yukon. It is in OKC at Council Road and I40. The closest point in Yukon is 4 miles away. I'm all for urban infill but you can't force the economics for that. Under current conditions that mall would have been out of place and a complete failure downtown.

You're both making strong points, but you're talking past each other. Hoyasooner is making a great point about resource management, or lack thereof. Because it's politically trendy right now to stick your head in the sand, we absolutely refuse to engage in public economic resource management, whilst every other developed nation does and we used to. That's how we started to sprawl in the first place. Anytime you cause a shift, in the case of the past the shift from urban to sprawl after WWII or in the case of today attempting to reverse that, massive subsidies, incentives, and government wrangling are always involved. That's the way it is.

Ljbab is making a point about rational choice. Developers generally work within the laws (except when they know they can get around them) and ordinances, because they know that their competition also has to follow the same rules. The system works only because it supposedly applies to all. In this scenario, and because of rational choice, the laws and ordinances also set the minimum development standards. However the problem with the Outlet Mall as a case study example in real estate economics is that an outlet mall is destination retail; most of its business is coming from a long ways away. Most people have been in agreement that downtown retail will need to achieve destination status in order to be capable of sustaining itself, simply because the rooftops don't exist downtown, and even with more development, that is still too unique of a demographic. Throw out the normal laws of economics that would otherwise apply to a normal strip mall retail center surrounded by typical suburbia.

To tell the truth, it's more of a matter of safety. Developers feel safe with sprawl. Urban development absolutely requires creativity and innovation, and yes you can be more successful, but you can also be a lot less successful too. The people with track records downtown are doing stuff, the people with track records in the suburbs are more conservative and tepid.

[jn1780]

I just can't believe we would save a geodesic dome that was 'in the style' of a famous architect but not his creation, an old hotel that, while having lots of nostalgia and some history associated with it, was not all that architecturally ground-breaking, and that we would put up such a strong fight to save (but ultimately lose) an old YMCA. But that with this building... which really is an architectural one of a kind, designed by an important architect, and is recognized so the world around... then I can't help but think that city preservationists can't see the forest for the trees. There are good decisions and there are bad decisions. Every bad decision I have ever seen in my work life was backed up by statistics, costing data, and strong opinions. But at the end of the day it was still the wrong decision and ultimately, after it was too late, this was realized. I can't help but feel that folks who would just allow Stage Center to be torn down have fallen into this same trap.

There's a reason its "one of a kind". We could replicate that building today on an empty field easily if we wanted to. Its a lot harder to replicate buildings like the Skirvin that were built in the early 1900's. That kind of hand craftsmanship doesn't exist anymore.

[Urbanized]

I believe someone told you that but I'm even more sure that is a wildly exaggerated tale as it defies all common sense and is completely contrary to the public facts about how the building was handled from almost the moment it closed.

I don't know what to tell you other than I know several people who were closely involved, including members of the Skirvin Solutions Committee. I also know the name(s) of person(s) who were lobbying to have the building demolished, and it truly did "frost my beard." Additionally, there was at least some public sentiment supporting demolition, including published letters to the editor in The Oklahoman.

[Urbanized]

Pete, this was to some extent a ruse - designed to get people off of high center - and Willa is NOT who I am talking about, but this illustrates how freely people were throwing around "demolish" and "Skirvin" in the same sentence at one point:

Skirvin May Be Declared Dilapidated

Steve Lackmeyer, Jack Money
Published: July 8, 1999
The once luxurious Skirvin Hotel's rags-to-riches possibilities are getting dimmer as city leaders consider declaring the downtown landmark dilapidated.

Oklahoma City Councilwoman Willa Johnson, critical of the hotel's deterioration and uncertain future, asked Wednesday to place the hotel on the city's dilapidated list. If the council approves, it would force the owner to repair the hotel, tear it down or leave it for the city to tear down, if necessary.

Johnson made the request after learning that new roof leaks have been found in the wake of heavy rains the past few weeks.

Ownership of the hotel has changed several times since it closed in 1988. Each new owner has failed to deliver promised renovations and reopenings.

"We've had a boarded-up building in the middle of downtown for years, and it's fast deteriorating," Johnson said Wednesday.

"We need to rehabilitate it as a hotel or put something in its place. And what I'm saying today is I want the owners of the building to do something - to not let it deteriorate any further."

City inspectors must first review Johnson's request. They will survey the property to see whether it is dilapidated under the city's standards.

If the building is considered dilapidated, then inspectors would bring the matter before the city council asking for the authority to request its owners to either repair or demolish the structure.

A vote by the council to have the building demolished would require its owners to carry out the order by a specific date. Failure to carry out the request would result in the city hiring its own contractor to do the work, with the bill being attached to the property's taxes.

Johnson's request surprised city officials, who estimate it would cost more to tear down the old hotel than the city's annual budget for demolition.

They equate the Skirvin's potential demolition costs to that of the old Belle Isle power plant and the old Mercy Hospital building in north downtown.

Johnson's request Wednesday followed last week's announcement by Mike Dillard that equity partner William Curry Myles had lost the exclusive rights to purchase the building from Dillard's Tower 2000 for redevelopment.

Myles, who has been trying to buy out Dillard for months, lost his exclusive rights when he failed to meet a June 30 deadline to get the needed financing for the purchase deal.

Dillard said Wednesday he is sure the Skirvin situation will be resolved.

Read more: http://newsok.com/skirvin-may-be-dec...#ixzz1o65j7i70

[Pete]

I have no doubt there were some people who felt the Skirvin wasn't worth saving -- I've heard that said about the First National Center the Colcord and just about everywhere else -- but that is a very, very long way from saying it was almost demolished.

That building was not owned by the city until very late in it's closure and by then the whole point of taking control was to save it. Moreover, there were government grants tied to that property long before the city finally put together a viable ownership/financing deal.

And of the several ownership groups none of them ever once proposed tearing it down.

[Pete]

this was to some extent a ruse - designed to get people off of high center

The city did something similar back in the early 90's to gain control of the property.

[Urbanized]

Well, sorry to be so vague. I never said it was "almost demolished." What I am saying is that there were very important, influential people behind the scenes who wanted it done. This was not some old-building-hater spouting off in a web forum, is was decision-makers lobbying to demolish. The long-term threat to the building was very real.

[Pete]

The whole reason we're discussing this in this thread is that the Skirvin is being held up as a cautionary tale: "Even the beautiful Skirvin was almost thrown away! That proves that no building in OKC is safe!!"


I consider myself a preservationist yet I can see why many see that cause as backed by a lot of over-reactionaries who are forever parading out the slippery slope argument. And I think that is what is happening to certain extent with Stage Center.

[soonerguru]

The whole reason we're discussing this in this thread is that the Skirvin is being held up as a cautionary tale: "Even the beautiful Skirvin was almost thrown away! That proves that no building in OKC is safe!!"


I consider myself a preservationist yet I can see why many see that cause as backed by a lot of over-reactionaries who are forever parading out the slippery slope argument. And I think that is what is happening to certain extent with Stage Center.

It's past a "slippery slope" when we've already taken a plunge without parachutes into the canyon. The icons and historical treasures that have avoided this plunge in OKC are few. It's hardly reactionary when the city has a 50-plus year history of doing it to anything and everything, regardless of aesthetics, functionality, civic virtue, or substantive value. We can all thank Blanton or whatever company that was that took down the Belle Isle plant and gave us a ghastly Wal-Mart strip development -- while destroying a watershed.

I hear what you're saying but I think our preservationists aren't reactionary (or loud) enough.

[ljbab728]

Ljbab is making a point about rational choice. Developers generally work within the laws (except when they know they can get around them) and ordinances, because they know that their competition also has to follow the same rules. The system works only because it supposedly applies to all. In this scenario, and because of rational choice, the laws and ordinances also set the minimum development standards. However the problem with the Outlet Mall as a case study example in real estate economics is that an outlet mall is destination retail; most of its business is coming from a long ways away. Most people have been in agreement that downtown retail will need to achieve destination status in order to be capable of sustaining itself, simply because the rooftops don't exist downtown, and even with more development, that is still too unique of a demographic. Throw out the normal laws of economics that would otherwise apply to a normal strip mall retail center surrounded by typical suburbia.

Spartan, my main point was regarding a statement that because OKC developers had enough money to develop the outlet mall there should be enough money to save the Stage Center which doesn't equate. Surely you're not suggesting that a development like that would have any place in the downtown area. Downtown needs retail but that's not it. That was the thought behind the much maligned Bass Pro Shop.

[Rover]

This developer is national, and I am pretty sure they have no central city outlet malls nor any that are in historic or architecturally significant buildings. The idea that this development somehow proves there is money available for stage center is bizarre.

[Urbanized]

Pete, while I don't think the Skirvin was "about to be torn down," I do believe it ultimately would have been, had not Kirk Humphreys formed the Skirvin Solutions Committee at great personal political risk. Though it might not seem like in in hindsight, it is the truth. Had he not thoughtfully crafted that committee at such a critical juncture in that building's existence, I believe it WOULD have been demolished by now.

As the building degraded, the "unfortunately, it's beyond saving" or the "it would be too cost-prohibitive to save" or the "it's an eyesore, stifling neighboring developments" argument WOULD have ultimately become too believable and compelling to the average citizen, much as those arguments for demo of Stage Center are today. The building seemed hopeless, would have only gotten worse, and more and more people would have become fatalistic about it, buying the practicality line.

Would there have been a fight? Yes. But without a creative financial soulution there would have ultimately also been a funeral. This is an inevitibility in these types of instances, and buildings far more beautiful and important than the Skirvin have fallen victim to this irresistable march of "progress."

In that sense, I think it is entirely appropriate to consider it instructional in the case of Stage Center.

[Steve]

For the record, there were VERY POWERFUL interests pushing to tear down the Skirvin in the late 1990s. It was Kirk Humphreys who really prevented such a fate from occurring.

[Spartan]

I believe wholeheartedly in vilifying the folks who wanted to tear it down, because I am sick and tired of these people who opposed the idea of downtown revitalization, opposed the Thunder, opposed the Skirvin restoration and other incredible historic preservation projects--and then they deny their record on projects that went down as successes and continue their track record of opposing preservation and revitalization of downtown.

I am sorry, but if somebody wanted the Skirvin to be torn down, that should disqualify any involvement in anything ever again. For someone to be so wrong on something that was so successful, to have such an incredible shortcoming of foresight, is just unbelievable in this day and age when the Skirvin has been perhaps THE biggest, and most under-hyped downtown success story to date. Either that, or we should make it so well-known that the issue clouds over them and prevents people from considering their drivel to be a legitimate argument.

So we've got Willa Johnson, who is now wanting citizens to throw down $300+ million for a jail we don't need. Who else do we need to vilify? I wish we were keeping track, and could give report cards on civic leaders each year, like virtually every major national advocacy group.

[Steve]

Willa was playing a political card, trying to force the hand of Roddy Bates and Michael Dillard. She wasn't serious about tearing it down. As for the power players... one the most powerful in the group that wanted it torn down is now dead.

[Spartan]

Jim Brewer? (who is not somebody that we need to further vilify IMO, especially posthumously)

[Pete]

EK Gaylord. Lots of editorials in the Oklahoma in 2000/01.

But this issue is much more complex than saying people were "pushing to tear it down". The main issue was spending a ton of city tax dollars without a viable plan. And it's darn hard to argue against that.


Anyway, I'm not going to debate this any more. I would suggest people do their own research on the chronology of events; it's not hard to do through the Oklahoman archives and elsewhere.

I followed all this very closely at the time and have re-read all the articles and stand by my previous statements.

[Jim Kyle]

EK Gaylord. Lots of editorials in the Oklahoma in 2000/01.

I think you mean E.K.'s son Eddie; E.K. died long before the turn of the century!

[Steve]

Pete, with all respect and appreciation for you, I was writing many of those articles you were reading. Some powerful folks had other ideas with what to do with the Skirvin property and were lobbying behind the scenes to have it torn down. The official record does not always reflect what's occurring behind the scenes. In this case there was more than a passive opposition to preserving the hotel.

[Questor]

There's a reason its "one of a kind". We could replicate that building today on an empty field easily if we wanted to. ...

And the Louvre Pyramid in Paris is just a big glass pyramid. They could replace it tomorrow if it were destroyed so no big loss right?

[SoonerDave]

And the Louvre Pyramid in Paris is just a big glass pyramid. They could replace it tomorrow if it were destroyed so no big loss right?

Please tell me you're not comparing the Louvre Pyramid to the freaking Stage Center.

Please.

[Just the facts]

And the Louvre Pyramid in Paris is just a big glass pyramid. They could replace it tomorrow if it were destroyed so no big loss right?

Are you saying it's not? Compared to the original architecture of The Louvre, the pyramid part could be replaced in three months.

[Rover]

Let's see...the pyramid is structurally sound and part of a world class facility. So this compares to stage center's issue how?

[Rover]

By the way, the pyramid may seem out of place, but if you go just a couple of blocks Through the gardens to the Place de la Concorde you will find a large Egyptian obelisk which can be seen from the Louvre so there actually is a tie in. Not sure what the Stage Center fits in OKC. Not that I want it to go.

[Questor]

My point, which you guys either missed or just ignored because you don't share the same opinion, is that value is not always a function of cost. The total sum of all the parts of that glass pyramid is probably a lot less than Stage Center and its design simple enough that it could be replicated if someone wanted to. Yet its artistic and cultural value to the city of Paris is priceless. Priceless to the point that I am confident if it ever cracks or suffers structural damage they will painstakingly rework each pane of glass one by one rather than raze the thing and start over, even if that would be cheaper to do.

It may not be the work of IM Pei, but what I am suggesting is that perhaps there is more value in Stage Center than what some of you are assigning to it by just tallying up the sum of its parts.