Stage Center

[G.Walker]

Stage Center sold | The Journal Record

[bombermwc]

I've always looked at Stage Center as a lost opportunity in space useage. The tunnels do a horrible job of connecting the pods because you're so limited in your space. The someone that's elderly, the walking distances inside are not friendly either. The idea behind it (the shared theater space) is a great one and all, I just dont thing SC ever did a good job of executing it. There are several ways to create shared spaces between the various types of theaters as well so they can better share resources, which is imperative for this type of project. You dont have to create a massive lobby or anything crazy like that to do this, but the lack of any real connecting lobby means it also lacks the ability to gather the people during events. What it does have in lobby space is pretty sad. That's the type of space you use to hold fundraisers to keep yourself above water too. It's fine arts, it has to get donations coming in outside of ticket sales in order to survive. Unforunately, we the "coalition" environment that ran the place was never able to get things like that organized in any meaningful and sustainable way. Being an amateur theater group, it tended to have amateurs in the background as well. All the heart and passion in the world can't make up for the backoffice.

The size of each theater really is spot on for the performance groups that use the space though. It'a a resource I really hope comes back and would be a great project for a future MAPs program maybe? We won't see anything quite as different as it's surroundings. Heck, Disney Concert Hall in L.A. was first looked as in horror as well. Fortunate for them, the amazing acoustics and design inside has helped show people what that type of design can do for a structure. But in Disney's case, the "crazy" shapes are actually part of what make the sound work. in Stage Center, it does nothing.

[betts]

Too bad the Gardens aren't being maintained though.

This is why I think the less programming in the new Central Park, the better. To me, there is so much to take care of, it has to be very difficult to oversee. Having had big perennial beds in the past, it required constant labor to maintain them. Mowing grass and picking up leaf litter is far easier and requires far less manpower. And a stroll on a path under the trees is a relaxing way to be out of doors.

[Pete]

[jccouger]

Such a unique and interesting building. Beautiful picture, even more so knowing it will be all we will have left of the building.

[Urbanized]

This photo does an excellent job of demonstrating why SC can't be substantially "relocated" or easily and cheaply rebuilt somewhere else. For the most part, the only things that could possibly be removed and repurposed are the silver boxes mounted above the roofline which all house mechanicals such as air conditioning systems (exciting!), the blue ramps, and the orange connection tubes. Everything else is primarily monolithic, poured-in-place, reinforced concrete. Tearing it down will by itself be a massive chore.

People who suggest it can be moved or easily replicated don't fully grasp the construction of this building. The fact that it SEEMS airy and almost portable when viewed from the street is a visual trick and part of what made the building so innovative at the time.

Photo:

[flintysooner]

I've always looked at Stage Center as a lost opportunity in space useage. The tunnels do a horrible job of connecting the pods because you're so limited in your space. The someone that's elderly, the walking distances inside are not friendly either. The idea behind it (the shared theater space) is a great one and all, I just dont thing SC ever did a good job of executing it. There are several ways to create shared spaces between the various types of theaters as well so they can better share resources, which is imperative for this type of project. You dont have to create a massive lobby or anything crazy like that to do this, but the lack of any real connecting lobby means it also lacks the ability to gather the people during events. What it does have in lobby space is pretty sad. That's the type of space you use to hold fundraisers to keep yourself above water too. It's fine arts, it has to get donations coming in outside of ticket sales in order to survive. Unforunately, we the "coalition" environment that ran the place was never able to get things like that organized in any meaningful and sustainable way. Being an amateur theater group, it tended to have amateurs in the background as well. All the heart and passion in the world can't make up for the backoffice.

The size of each theater really is spot on for the performance groups that use the space though. It'a a resource I really hope comes back and would be a great project for a future MAPs program maybe? We won't see anything quite as different as it's surroundings. Heck, Disney Concert Hall in L.A. was first looked as in horror as well. Fortunate for them, the amazing acoustics and design inside has helped show people what that type of design can do for a structure. But in Disney's case, the "crazy" shapes are actually part of what make the sound work. in Stage Center, it does nothing.

I agree with so much of your post. Good job for putting those thoughts into words. I really did enjoy plays there but not much of anything else.

There were so many issues with the construction. So many of those 30 or more roofs leaked and some of those small areas were nearly impossible to make watertight. It was a cold building as I think there was very little insulation. I've heard there were all sorts of mechanical issues. And it was practically inaccessible for a lot of people. I wonder if the building could even be built now and be in compliance. And then there are all those problems with the basement area and the flooding. No telling what all was growing down there.

I think it has been at least 25 years since I attended a performance there so it is been a part of my memory for a lot longer than it was in current.

[Pete]

This photo does an excellent job of demonstrating why SC can't be substantially "relocated" or easily and cheaply rebuilt somewhere else. For the most part, the only things that could possibly be removed and repurposed are the silver boxes mounted above the roofline which all house mechanicals such as air conditioning systems (exciting!), the blue ramps, and the orange connection tubes. Everything else is primarily monolithic, poured-in-place, reinforced concrete. Tearing it down will by itself be a massive chore.

People who suggest it can be moved or easily replicated don't fully grasp the construction of this building. The fact that it SEEMS airy and almost portable when viewed from the street is a visual trick and part of what made the building so innovative at the time.

Yes, it's largely a series of concrete bunkers set into the ground.

Absolutely no way the large majority of this structure could ever be moved.

[shawnw]

I was interested in the idea of re-building it from scratch using Johansen's design, since it is that we are lauding, essentially. The only tweaks to be made (in my thinking) would possibly be ADA related and something to prevent the basement flooding and roof leaks, but otherwise use his exact specifications to build a visual replica. More than anything, I'm academically interested in the cost comparison. I'd like to see a no-joke, true-cost estimate of the repairs to baseline, and then a full estimate of the cost to re-build the design elsewhere. I'm truly interested in what the difference would be. I do realize the impracticalities and such. Perhaps it is an impossible feat. But even in that case I'd still like the data. If nothing else it could help defend keeping it where it is and intact.

[Pete]

It certainly would be cheaper to rebuild most of it rather than trying to relocate.

[Urbanized]

... like to see a no-joke, true-cost estimate of the repairs to baseline, and then a full estimate of the cost to re-build the design elsewhere. I'm truly interested in what the difference would be...

Herein lies a part of the problem. You could likely never gain such estimates from an agenda-free source. The building is now politicized.

[shawnw]

Herein lies a part of the problem. You could likely never gain such estimates from an agenda-free source. The building is now politicized.

I agree with that. I realize the flaw in my request. I don't feel it makes the idea entirely invalid, but certainly unlikely to be accomplished.

[Just the facts]

People who suggest it can be moved or easily replicated don't fully grasp the construction of this building.

From the words of Johansen himself.

Architect Still Marveling Over City Theater Center | News OK

Costing under $3 million, the Mummers to Johansen was "a low budget building of low budget materials."

I think it can be rebuilt somewhere else easily and inexpensively. The biggest problem I see though is that it would probably be illegal to do so (no ADA access, fire codes that require windows, elevators, etc...). And of course, we would still have a brand new building that doesn't meet the needs of the modern live performance industry.

[Of Sound Mind]

Herein lies a part of the problem. You could likely never gain such estimates from an agenda-free source. The building is now politicized.

I agree with that. I realize the flaw in my request. I don't feel it makes the idea entirely invalid, but certainly unlikely to be accomplished.

So, it's time for all the Stage Center enthusiasts and supporters to put up or shut up. Raise the funds to make it respectable or let the process move forward to repurpose that land to something more productive and less neglected.

[shawnw]

So, it's time for all the Stage Center enthusiasts and supporters to put up or shut up. Raise the funds to make it respectable or let the process move forward to repurpose that land to something more productive and less neglected.

I'm actually an advocate of moving forward (I authored the insensitive stage center poll), but am also interested in being thorough in the examination of the options and sensitive to what some consider a treasure, even if I do not. It's what I'd like to see being done if I were on the other side of the issue.

[Urbanized]

Three million dollars...FOURTY FIVE YEARS AGO! Around the same time we built the Myriad for something like $23 million. It would probably cost what...$250 or $300 million today if built to the pre-MAPS configuration.

Yeah, the materials were inexpensive compared to the standard at the time for performing arts centers, which generally included elements like limestone and marble. We get it; SC has bad street interaction, and in your world that makes it unacceptable under any circumstances. But geez, man, you're usually better than just ignoring facts or making stuff up to suit your narrative.

You do make good points about modern building standards making the prospect of from-scratch construction even more expensive.

[shawnw]

Not that it matters, but using an inflation calculator, it would cost $17,496,864.45 today. I realize that would be low because we'd have to account for other things today (the ADA stuff, etc).

[Pete]

FYI, adjusting for inflation $3 million in 1965 would be about $21 million in today's dollars.

[Urbanized]

FYI, adjusting for inflation $3 million in 1965 would be about $21 million in today's dollars.

Thanks for that. By the way, "tens of millions" would still be a bargain-basement price for a performing arts center. They sometimes cost in excess of $100 million these days. The INTERIOR RENOVATION of the Civic Center (admittedly ambitious) was over $50 million more than a decade ago.

[jccouger]

How much are we spending on the C2S park? 20-30 million to rebuild to rebuild it there wouldn't be bad. We should rebuild it there, and actually have another way to generate revenue for the park. If we don't, and the maintenance issues of the MBG are any indication, we are gonna need revenue from that park in any way possible.

[kevinpate]

If you can not get folks to buy in on rehabbing the much smaller and far less expensive existing Film Exchange structure on the park property, there is simply no rational reason to believe the folks pressing for the park to be per submitted designs would scrap that vision to plop an SC into the mix. That's one huge chunk of park you are talking about.

[OkieNate]

If you can not get folks to buy in on rehabbing the much smaller and far less expensive existing Film Exchange structure on the park property, there is simply no rational reason to believe the folks pressing for the park to be per submitted designs would scrap that vision to plop an SC into the mix. That's one huge chunk of park you are talking about.

Its a 70 acre park, space isn't an issue... Capital is the issue and we all get that. Excuse us for trying to have a little vision and faith in OKC we learned from our past(which it seems we haven't) SC is going to get demoed and you and your hero millionaire will get the parking garage you so desperately want...

[jccouger]

Cheaper is all you care about. We are paying for that park, so we have every right to say what goes on/in the park. And I promise you OKC citizens are 1000:1 more aware of the stage center than the film exchange building. But honestly I'd prefer for us to keep the Exhchange building, and rebuild the stage center there. (Though I'd rather the stage center also just stay put)

[proud2Bsooner]

The tunnels and other shapes constructed of metal look like a grandpa's solution for disrepair. It looks horribly cheap. That with the bland concrete shapes make BAD architecture. It doesn't matter that the architect was part of a group of 5 Harvard elites. It's bad architecture. It's non-functional and ugly. I swear, when some people see words like iconic, architectural, modern, historic, or famous they go into architectural treasure mode. People are ignoring the sheer ugliness of this building, nevermind the lack of use and poor design that this "famous" garbage gives the city.

People are letting some architectural textbook define who the great architects are, and whether their buildings are worth a darn. We all know, whether we want to admit it or not, that this has been a poor design from almost every aspect from the time they broke ground. Tear it down!

[kevinpate]

My post wasn't a comment on the SC structure at all. It was on the reality of what the park pushers want, what they already have, and how they have treated the Film Exchange bldg. folks for opposing in any manner the park as they envision it going full steam ahead.

If someone has the capital and wants to acquire land just west of the planned park and rebuild SC right across the street from it, that's likely a plan that would have a better shot at working. This is one place I do part company with those who truly hate SC. It is the design that won an award, not the location of the design.

If someone wants to build a new SC from scratch (it truly can not be moved) and can rework the interior for compliance with today's codes, and can make it work financially so it is actually doable, hey, I'll be there for the ribbon cutting. Just don't include the design aspect that makes it rather prone to flooding. Let that part be buried along with the dead original structure, and have a plan to not have a second failure for want of revenue, flooding, etc.