Stage Center

[Rover]

ThE two are such apples and oranges they can't be compared. The pyramid illuminates and provides access to a much larger structure beneatH. It is as functional as it is unusual. The structure serves the function. With the Stage Center, the function SUFFERS because of the structure. If you've been to each it is very obvious. If all you see of the pyramid is a picture, you can't get a sense of it.

[BDP]

ThE two are such apples and oranges they can't be compared.

Yes. One is a decoration. A grand entrance. The other is a complete functioning building. The pyramid really has no burden of function. I think Stage Center was a great mix of function and form in design, it just didn't hold up. If the Stage Center structure was only a labyrinthine entrance to a much grander facility, it wouldn't need $30 million to fix it because it would not be expected to fulfill the functions that it was actually constructed for.

Overall, I have never been to see performance art and visual art on that scale in a cooler and more appropriate place than Stage Center. It was a great multi-functional art facility that was a work of art itself. Usually stuff on that scale today is housed in unassuming playhouses that very often have little unique features. Stage Center always offered a unique and inviting experience before the house lights ever came down or any art was ever hung.

[Rover]

Sorry, but the Pyramid at the Louvre is part of a totally functional design. If you've been, you know. Creative design can be very functional...the two aren't exclusive. The question on the Stage Center is, can it be totally functional and useful as a building, or is it merely a piece of art and homage to the architect, as well as a landmark for the city? And, if it isn't economically viable as an ongoing entity, exactly what is the public cost one time and ongoing? If re-purposed, who supports it financially?

FWIW, I am in favor of saving the building as I do think it is significant. However, if the $$$ to do so don't flow pretty darn quickly it will be a moot point.

[Just the facts]

Sorry, but the Pyramid at the Louvre is part of a totally functional design. If you've been, you know.

They could be cubes - all they are is an enterance to a place that already existed. Their only actual function is that they keep rain out. That was the point BDP was making.

[BDP]

Sorry, but the Pyramid at the Louvre is part of a totally functional design. If you've been, you know.

I have not been there, but it seems mostly ornamental. It was a way to spruce up the entrance. I am in no way saying it doesn't have value, it just never had a functional burden to which to conform. It's top priority is aesthetics.

Creative design can be very functional...the two aren't exclusive.

Clearly. As I outlined above, I feel Stage Center was a good execution of both.

The question on the Stage Center is, can it be totally functional and useful as a building, or is it merely a piece of art and homage to the architect, as well as a landmark for the city?

Yes. And when it was functioning, I thought it did all of the above and more.

And, if it isn't economically viable as an ongoing entity, exactly what is the public cost one time and ongoing? If re-purposed, who supports it financially?

That's the problem and, as I have stated before, I get it. The economics do not exist here to get it back on its feet or, more specifically, overcome the maintenance burden which the design inadvertently compounded.

FWIW, I am in favor of saving the building as I do think it is significant. However, if the $$$ to do so don't flow pretty darn quickly it will be a moot point.

Right. However, I don't feel that speaks to the structure's merit of design in the context of function as much as it does the economics of supporting such a design. That's kind of like saying the design of a Ferrari doesn't succeed because it results in a high cost of purchase and maintenance. All it really means is that only a select few can afford to keep one in their garage. And, unfortunately, imo, OKC is not one of those select few.

[BDP]

Their only actual function is that they keep rain out.

What's funny is that if Stage Center's only functional burden was to do just that, then I would unequivocally agree it was a failure. ; )

[Spartan]

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.

This is a very bad argument. The correct answer is to support both, not pit one style or one taste against one another. Preservation is not a zero-sum game.

[Bullbear]

I don't think it is necesarry to pit those two things against each other. The Stage center has archetectual significance and its destruction is not something you can take back 10 years down the road.

[Just the facts]

I don't think it is necesarry to pit those two things against each other. The Stage center has archetectual significance and its destruction is not something you can take back 10 years down the road.

You could re-build Stage Center in 3 weeks using the exact same materials. It isn't like putting up concrete forms and attaching sheet metal is a cost-prohibitive lost art these days.

[MDot]

...its destruction is not something you can take back 10 years down the road...

No joke? Haha

[Bullbear]

Clearly you either GET IT.. or you DON"T...

[MDot]

Clearly you either GET IT.. or you DON"T...

There's no happy middle? LOL

[Just the facts]

Clearly you either GET IT.. or you DON"T...

I am just having a hard time figuring out what there is to get.

1) there is nothing special about the location
2) the building materials are not unique
3) the detail (what there is) is easily replicated
4) the time period it was built in is not special
5) the construction technique is not a lost art
6) brutalism itself was intened to be uninspiring - and definately is not in short supply in downtown OKC.

What would prevent Stage Center from being built anywhere else in OKC?

[rcjunkie]

I am just having a hard time figuring out what there is to get.

1) there is nothing special about the location
2) the building materials are not unique
3) the detail (what there is) is easily replicated
4) the time period it was built in is not special
5) the construction technique is not a lost art
6) brutalism itself was intened to be uninspiring - and definately is not in short supply in downtown OKC.

What would prevent Stage Center from being built anywhere else in OKC?

Finding an area that would allow such garbage to be built in their neighborhood !!

[Just the facts]

Not that I want to save Stage Center - but doing some projection animation on it would be pretty neat and a huge crowd pleaser (plus very easy to do)



of course, no one does it better than Disney. This video does not even come close do it justice but you get the idea.

[ljbab728]

Things are still very much undecided and up in the air.

http://newsok.com/proposals-for-stag...financial-news

[Just the facts]

This is all you need to know:

said her organization is proceeding with a property appraisal that she expects will be completed in 60 days.

Read more: http://newsok.com/proposals-for-stag...#ixzz1p0D4YlHJ

It will be interesting what the value comes back as considering the Convention Center will be buying a much larger piece of land right next door.

[Pete]

Sounds to me like they will be putting the property on the market as soon as the appraisal comes back.

I suppose there is the slight chance someone would buy and want to keep the building, but I think that is highly unlikely.

[hoya]

I am just having a hard time figuring out what there is to get.

1) there is nothing special about the location
2) the building materials are not unique
3) the detail (what there is) is easily replicated
4) the time period it was built in is not special
5) the construction technique is not a lost art
6) brutalism itself was intened to be uninspiring - and definately is not in short supply in downtown OKC.

What would prevent Stage Center from being built anywhere else in OKC?

There is value in the building remaining original. In this case I'm not sure how much value, but it exists. If the glass pyramid thing at the Louvre were to be damaged in a storm, they would replace it as closely as possible to the original. It's as much a piece of art as any of the pieces inside the museum.

It's like a classic car. A 1957 Corvette with all original parts is worth more than a 1957 Corvette with a brand new engine. Even if the one with the new engine has more horsepower, goes faster, and gets better gas mileage. Does it make sense? Not if you don't value the car as a historical piece.

Now, arguably Stage Center is closer to a 1985 Mustang than a '57 Vette. Now matter how closely you restore it to the original, it's only worth so much. But a restored original Stage Center is worth more than a copy that is built on some other site.

[Just the facts]

There is value in the building remaining original. In this case I'm not sure how much value, but it exists. If the glass pyramid thing at the Louvre were to be damaged in a storm, they would replace it as closely as possible to the original. It's as much a piece of art as any of the pieces inside the museum.

It's like a classic car. A 1957 Corvette with all original parts is worth more than a 1957 Corvette with a brand new engine. Even if the one with the new engine has more horsepower, goes faster, and gets better gas mileage. Does it make sense? Not if you don't value the car as a historical piece.

Now, arguably Stage Center is closer to a 1985 Mustang than a '57 Vette. Now matter how closely you restore it to the original, it's only worth so much. But a restored original Stage Center is worth more than a copy that is built on some other site.

Does that '57 Corvette with original parts run, or is it sitting in the woods behind the trailer all rusted? If they fixed Stage Center - how much of it would be original?

An old farmer bragged that he had the same shovel for 60 years - saying they just don't make them like they used to. Asked how he was able to keep the shovel in working condition after 60 years he said he replaced the handle 3 times and the spade 4 times.

[Rover]

This is all you need to know:



It will be interesting what the value comes back as considering the Convention Center will be buying a much larger piece of land right next door.

You are spot on. I believe this valuation and possible sale will help expedite the negotiations on the CC site. It will establish fair market value. The building will not influence the price much, if any at all. This will be a very interesting appraisal.

[OKCisOK4me]

Things are still very much undecided and up in the air.

http://newsok.com/proposals-for-stag...financial-news

I "like"d this story on Steve's Facebook page.

[OKCisOK4me]

Now, arguably Stage Center is closer to a 1985 Mustang than a '57 Vette. Now matter how closely you restore it to the original, it's only worth so much. But a restored original Stage Center is worth more than a copy that is built on some other site.

No, I'm gonna have to say it's more like the green one here...

[hoya]

No, I'm gonna have to say it's more like the green one here...

Combat was a bad ass game. I still have that somewhere.

[Just the facts]

Combat was a bad ass game. I still have that somewhere.

The original or one of those Atari games for Playstation 2 that looks and plays exactly like the original? Just asking