OG&E Tower

[ChaseDweller]

I happen to like Stage Center. I don't find it ugly and I love the theater spaces inside. I did some theater in my youth and always enjoyed going to shows there. But the building is an albatross. It's just not economically viable without massive public subsidy. How do you make a community theater go when it has $40MM in overhead to cover before it ever buys rights to a script, builds a set or pays an actor? You can't. It just won't work. That's why most community theaters are in old warehouses. The house isn't big enough to do Broadway or other large shows that generate the gate to pay for the building. And, it's not just the $40MM in reno/repurchase. It's also the operating cost and losses that have to be funded. But, the money just isn't there. So it either sits empty and unrenovated or it gets removed for something else. This is not like tearing down a beautiful old building that has the potential to be a commercial success. SC hasn't been economically viable since it was built. I don't like it, but that's the truth.

[Rover]

Another experiment to run... go to LA and show 100 people pictures, without signage, of the outside of Greenway Court, Asylum, Knightsbridge, and even the UCB. See how many recognize them. Then do the same with Stage Center in OKC.

Most people have no idea what the exterior of their local community theaters look like. Stage Center is an anomaly in that way. It is definitely more iconic within Oklahoma City than most community theaters are in most places.

Now if they're doing community theater at the needle or the arch that I was unaware of, then you may have a point.

You've gone from red herring to strawman to bizarre with this argument. LOL.

[Rover]

The buzz is certainly that Enogex/CenterPoint will be coming to OKC, even among the employees at both companies.

It's not a done deal but it looks good for OKC.

With employee bases buzzing about it, I assume an announcement will come soon. The companies should want to control the information themselves instead of a free for all gossip which could hurt morale at one place or the other, or both.

[mkjeeves]

Rover is right. You will not see "millennials" at these places. Again, stage center was never really condusive to the local idea of "establishment" arts like the places Rover references are, and is why it could never survive in a city like this, or most cities, in the location where it was built. It was always way too high profile for its intended use. Oklahoma City has and will always have treasured local arts, it just won't be at this location or in the unique setting that it offered. Part of what made it different was that it was a great place for local talent to showcase its ability in a unique setting in the heart of a city. That's extremely rare and it now seems like gross hubris for a town like OKC to think it could do what the biggest of cities have trouble doing. We can't be expected to reach beyond a standard unachievable by greater peers.

I understand that my experiences at Stage Center were not only unique to OKC, but unique to most art communities. Usually, local art is economically and feasibly forced out of city centers, or at least out of the mainstream art centers. Stage Center was a facility that tried to go against that trend and unsurprisingly failed. It's unfortunate that so many people, even those that are active consumers of local art like Rover, never got to experience stage center as an innovative local theater facility, art museum, music venue, and gallery. Obviously, I can't convince anyone who never experienced it those ways that it excelled in all those capacities, but I saw it do all of that. So, I guess I can just count myself lucky that I got to see it that way and wait for the next amazing performed of Hedwig or the next production of Surburbia, or the next Momentum, or the next locally organized tribute to Prince that will inevitably take place in OKC and be well attended by "millennials" or whatever the next buzz word is for young creative individuals, knowing that it will just not be held in a high profile or center piece venue like a stage center.

And maybe that's okay. Bigger communities than ours usually cant pull that off. Not having a Stage Center will not prevent that from happening. It just means that it will happen in a far less descript setting like most everywhere else. Stage Center was a unique place because it offered the unexpected setting for the unexpected production in a city that was not expected to offer such efforts. Removing Stage Center from Oklahoma City's landscape will not prevent the works that were displayed there from being produced in Oklahoma City, it will just end Oklahoma City's potential ability from presenting those works in a way that cities twice its size wish they could do. We will, as intended and so desired, be more like somewhere else.

Well said! Nothing special to see here...move along.

[BDP]

You've gone from red herring to strawman to bizarre with this argument. LOL.

I agree. It was stupid of me to think I could take the original bizarre "experiment" and make it better by putting it into proper context, especially when it seems most don't even consider Stage Center for what it was actually built.

OKC is what it is when it comes to innovative design and local arts. Stage Center's demise is just a reflection of that. The reality is that having it around never really changed anything. Again, the local art community was lucky that at one time there was a benefactor of small theater here that facilitated the construction of a community theater that, in that context, was ambitious for a lot of markets, let alone Oklahoma City.

[rlewis]

Comment was made that the drift was that some of those people (in Houston) were taking other jobs........

I noticed that in June the President of Centerpoint's midstream division pulled his name from consideration for the MLP's CEO position, and then resigned from Centerpoint. That bodes well for OKC as well. That's one less Houstonophile trying to pull the company to his city.

[RodH]

Can anyone tell me when the last production was performed in Stage Center?

[Pete]

I noticed that in June the President of Centerpoint's midstream division pulled his name from consideration for the MLP's CEO position, and then resigned from Centerpoint. That bodes well for OKC as well. That's one less Houstonophile trying to pull the company to his city.

Also may mean he realized the new entity would be located in OKC and decided he didn't want to make that move.

[PhiAlpha]

Another thing to think about when making comparisons between knocking the stage center down and the urban renewal demolitions of the 60s and 70s. During urban renewal, the point was to tear old buildings down for future development and it was being orchestrated by the city. I wasn't there, so correct me if I'm wrong, but people weren't actively trying to save most of the buildings before they were demolished. People didnt spend years trying to raise money for a renovation or think of alternative uses for them, when in reality, most of the buildings would've still been completely functional as revenue generating properties with a renovation or left as is. With the exception of maybe the Biltmore, the city's goal all along was to knock those buildings down as part of the Pei Plan, which had a good deal of popular support.

Flash forward to today, people have spent years trying to make the stage center work and it has never been an efficiently functioning, revenue producing property. The recent floods over the last few years have added $30 million + to the price tag of making it generate any revenue again as a theater, which isn't practical, and much time/money has been invested toward finding an alternate use for it. Finally as the last alternative, the stage center has been sold to investors with a concrete plan to put a "world class" building on the site (yes i know, every doubter on this board doesn't think Williams has a concrete plan...no way would be have purchased the property and come out to the media without one, especially when he was inheriting the stage center and all the PR issues that go with it as well as the looming high demolition or renovation costs required to do anything with the property). I've seen this situation compared destroying land marks in the 60s and 70s quite a bit in various forums and it annoys me because the circumstances are completely different. Contrasting urban renewal, in this situation, the building wasn't slated for demolition without a pretty solid run at saving it.

[Thundercitizen]

Also may mean he realized the new entity would be located in OKC and decided he didn't want to make that move.

...or he could have been very upset about the Stage Center demolition and refused to be associated with the desecration of the work of art that is The Stage Center.

Hopefully, the diehard Houstonians ARE falling to the wayside moving the announcement closer. An OKC win.

[HangryHippo]

...or he could have been very upset about the stage center demolition and refused to be associated with the desecration of the work of art that is the stage center.

hopefully, the diehard houstonians are falling to the wayside moving the announcement closer. An okc win.

haha.

[Pete]

Urban renewal of the 60's and 70's was based around the idea of clearing out large areas of blight in a way only a municipality can.

Big chunks of inner cities had become largely abandoned or at best occupied by an undesirable element and the momentum was more or less a downward spiral. Cities felt like they had to do something to make a big change and bring in developers who were willing to invest. And at the time, there was virtually zero private investment anywhere near downtown.

They also knew that making available a small amount of property wasn't going to do it either, as no one was going to build while being surrounded by really rough areas that were getting worse.

So, most American cities undertook massive projects to clear entire blocks and at least beat back the decay. The idea was to cut out the tumor, leave the healthy fabric and hope new development would follow public investment (The Myriad, Myriad Gardens, etc.). In this way, it was somewhat similar to our MAPS initiatives.

It's a misconception that urban renewal caused downtowns to die. They were already long dead with no sign of revival. Urban renewal was at least proactive and while it left scars, there is certainly no guarantee that any of the demolished buildings would be standing now anyway. Every week in OKC, a dilapidated structure is bulldozed because it has been neglected and/or vacant for a very long time. The old Hales Photography building on Broadway is a good example.


It's really too simplistic to vilify IM Pei or even our civic leaders at the time. EVERY city was doing something like this because they had to do something. You really have to understand the forces at work after WWII (the rise in prosperity, automobile, highway building, home ownership and the massive baby boom) to understand the bigger picture. And at that time, John Q. Citizen only saw the draw of the suburbs and the big step up in lifestyle they represented.

My parents were typical in this regard. We moved to OKC in 1962 from Milwaukee as my dad took a low-level management job where he had previously been blue collar. We had lived in an old, close-in neighborhood in Milwaukee but we landed near 63rd & Meridian in a brand new, 4 bedroom home on a 1/4 acre lot, purchased for $18,000 on a VA loan. In the then state-best Putnam City school district and we were right across the street from a brand new elementary school (Rollingwood). Pretty darn good for a guy who had been just recently driving a delivery truck.

At the same time, cities were not only struggling with blight, but racial issues that culminated in forced busing. That tended to drive even more people further out and fueled thousands of suburban (formerly rural) independent school districts.


What were cities to do? They were literally rotting in concentric circles radiating from the core. And the trend was accelerating.

Urban renewal at least provided hope. The Myriad opening was a big deal for OKC and gave our family a very rare reason to go downtown. The shopping and theaters had either completely left or were in pretty sketchy areas. And of course, we had nicer, newer, bigger shopping, entertainment and restaurants right in our own neighborhood.


If you want to point fingers, do so at the auto industry, the oil companies and the road building contractors. After WWII, the U.S. developed quite differently from other countries, even similarly young ones like Canada and Australia. And the reason is that they did not have those big industries to drive these landscape-altering changes.



And to get back to the topic here, the biggest difference between now and the old days of urban renewal is that any demolition now is almost always paired with specific development plans, and more often than not, it's driven by the private sector.

[G.Walker]

Can someone nail down the architect for this project? I am sure he has one by now, it would be hard to sign tenants to leases without some sort of design plan. Knowing the architect will tell us a lot about this project.

[Pete]

I don't know the architect but Williams obviously has one because he said they plan to reveal at least conceptual plans within 90 days.

And of course, he never would have bought the property without running a bunch of building scenarios through an architectural and engineering firm.

[BDP]

Can someone nail down the architect for this project? I am sure he has one by now, it would be hard to sign tenants to leases without some sort of design plan. Knowing the architect will tell us a lot about this project.

Or maybe part of the pitch would be that that the anchor tenant gets to have input on selecting the architect, that is, assuming that Williams is not just playing proxy in the whole thing.

Either way, those guys are pretty good at keeping secrets and this one has been CIA all the way.

[Harvey Hudson]

Enable Midstream Partners....

[Pete]

Enable Midstream Partners....

Second time I've heard that name from a good source, so it sure sounds like this will be the name of the new Enogex/CenterPoint entity.

[Pete]

ENABLE MIDSTREAM PARTNERS Trademark Application of CenterPoint Energy Field Services LP - Serial Number 85964161 :: Justia Trademarks

Enable Midstream Partners used same attorney to trademark as CenterPoint and CenterPoint is listed as the owner of this trademark name.

Filed on 6/19/13.


Also note: "New Application Office" entered, 6/29/13.

[nomadokla]

ENABLE MIDSTREAM PARTNERS Trademark Application of CenterPoint Energy Field Services LP - Serial Number 85964161 :: Justia Trademarks Seems to point to a connection with the name "Enable Midstream Partners"..

[hoya]

That's a horrible name.

[OKCTalker]

That entity Enable Midstream Partners, LP was registered with OSOS on 14 June. No registration agent information.

[Harvey Hudson]

Who cares what the name is! Be thankful for the jobs...

[warreng88]

Do they have to register the entity in a certain state? That might give us a clue.

[Pete]

Nothing has been decided yet but things continue to look good for OKC.

[warreng88]

Nothing has been decided yet but things continue to look good for OKC.

Giggity...