OG&E Tower

[Just the facts]

The problem though is that Stage Center exist today and it doesn't attract a crowd. For some reason people don't like to hang out in front of abandoned theaters.

[sgt. pepper]

The tower height is like the stock market... Rising and falling every day.

Today I heard the number is 33 -- but that's certainly not final.

How many floors today Pete?....

[BDP]

The problem though is that Stage Center exist today and it doesn't attract a crowd. For some reason people don't like to hang out in front of abandoned theaters.

Or any of the completely undeveloped lots we have all over downtown.

[Spartan]

Perhaps population/volume is dynamic between this tower and MT2 and/or MT3 (Mystery Tower II/III).


-signed-
Daydreamer

Considering the relationship.between Enable/Enogex and OG+E i think you're right

[Teo9969]

The problem though is that Stage Center exist today and it doesn't attract a crowd. For some reason people don't like to hang out in front of abandoned theaters.

To be real blunt, there's no much in our downtown that does, so it's not a stretch to assume SC is the same thing.

I'm not surprised you're trying to hold on to this so rigidly. But to play your game...go to Wien and find out how many locals go down to Stephansplatz to go to the Stephansdom...If you eliminated all the tourists from the area, you'd have a bustling area with little to no attention being paid to the cathedral.

But, I can assure you the Stage Center, even it's current form, would be in every OKC tourist pamphlet if there were purposeful development on the SW side of Downtown.

Obviously if the Stage Center were in use, it would be better...but I also assure you, that if you built an entire square around the theater (like we should be an entire section of the park around the Film Exchange) that pretty quickly you'd find someone ready to drop some money in the theater to make it a useful business.

[Dubya61]

To be real blunt, there's no much in our downtown that does, so it's not a stretch to assume SC is the same thing.

I'm not surprised you're trying to hold on to this so rigidly. But to play your game...go to Wien and find out how many locals go down to Stephansplatz to go to the Stephansdom...If you eliminated all the tourists from the area, you'd have a bustling area with little to no attention being paid to the cathedral.

But, I can assure you the Stage Center, even it's current form, would be in every OKC tourist pamphlet if there were purposeful development on the SW side of Downtown.

Obviously if the Stage Center were in use, it would be better...but I also assure you, that if you built an entire square around the theater (like we should be an entire section of the park around the Film Exchange) that pretty quickly you'd find someone ready to drop some money in the theater to make it a useful business.

Is the Stephansplatz usable? If not, would it take multi-million-dollars to make it usable in ANY form? The unfortunate reality of Stage Center is that it is not even usable. It would be better to remove it and replace it with art or a corn maze, or a single piddly-assed jungle gym.

[Teo9969]

Is the Stephansplatz usable? If not, would it take multi-million-dollars to make it usable in ANY form? The unfortunate reality of Stage Center is that it is not even usable. It would be better to remove it and replace it with art or a corn maze, or a single piddly-assed jungle gym.

Yes, the Stephansdom is in use. But it's a church congregation of an (relatively) inconsequential number. 25x (and that's probably a gross underestimation) more people go through that building every week as tourists than do as actual users of the building. And while the building would still garner tourists if it were placed on the outskirts of town all by itself, the number would be nowhere even close to the number that come through the building because they're in Stephansplatz or the other major corridors that lead into Stephansplatz.

What I'm saying is that of course nobody is going to Stage Center just to see Stage Center. 1. We don't have much tourism to speak of 2. Locals go to local tourist attractions rarely as tourists (i.e. I may go to the Memorial by myself, in a touristy way, once every 3 to 5 years). However, that doesn't change the fact that it is iconic. One may choose to disagree with that assertion, but that is simply a choice to be wrong.

If you bulldoze Stage Center, put in the 4 to 6 story mixed-use development that many of us crave so much, and you build that kind of development from here all the way to the river and west to Classen, why should I come to *this* spot over any other spot in this "urban utopia" established earlier in this sentence?

Again, the point isn't to save Stage Center. The point is that good urbanism is about place-making not formulaic development. And I'm sorry, but Stage Center, in the long run, beats out a block of 6 story mixed-use development. It beats out almost anything in OKC because of how unique it is.

[BDP]

If you bulldoze Stage Center, put in the 4 to 6 story mixed-use development that many of us crave so much, and you build that kind of development from here all the way to the river and west to Classen...

You could pull much of that off without tearing anything down, too.

The reality is that Stage Center's usability is kind of a moot point because there's so much land with nothing on it at all or, at most, just paved over for parking. I understand that Stage Center is much too unique of a structure to exist long term in a place like Oklahoma City, but it is pretty amazing that so many find it more of an eye sore than the multitude of surface and grass lots that take up so much space around it and around downtown. But, I guess parking lots are more viable than art here.

[Dubya61]

You could pull much of that off without tearing anything down, too.

The reality is that Stage Center's usability is kind of a moot point because there so much land with nothing on it all or, at most, just paved over for parking. I understand that Stage Center is much too unique of a structure to exist long term in a place like Oklahoma City, but it is pretty amazing that so many find it more of an eye sore than the multitude of surface and grass lots that take up so much space around it and around downtown. But, I guess parking lots are more viable than art here.

I don't think Stage Center's usability is a non-issue. Would anyone think that Stage Center was as wonderful as they do if it were filled with cement? I love(d) Stage Center because it's (or was) a fascinating theater. Now, however, with it's ZERO utility, it's about as interesting as this interesting grain facility: http://www.okctalk.com/norman/34718-what-structure.html. The only value to Stage Center is that it's an architectural work of art. Great, let's document it, raze it, and let the city continue to grow. Without the multi-million-dollar rehab it requires, it's blight.

[Snowman]

The reality is that Stage Center's usability is kind of a moot point ... I understand that Stage Center is much too unique of a structure to exist long term in a place like Oklahoma City, ... I guess parking lots are more viable than art here.

Right, cause if it were not unusable then it would be helping the arts community, would probably not have been for sale (certainly not at the current asking price) and baseless shots could not be taken at OKC citizens, but due to a poorly designed roof and break-ins stripping what they can get it is at present just a liability risk. All the while the land it is on is worth a lot of money that can actually go to furthering the arts community, but we should feed bad because for some reason our theater community is not going to keep this as a perpetual monument to an architecture style that was at best controversial and always had a lot of people who never like the style.

[tomokc]

The reality is that Stage Center's usability is kind of a moot point because there's so much land with nothing on it at all or, at most, just paved over for parking. I understand that Stage Center is much too unique of a structure to exist long term in a place like Oklahoma City, but it is pretty amazing that so many find it more of an eye sore than the multitude of surface and grass lots that take up so much space around it and around downtown. But, I guess parking lots are more viable than art here.

This building was a failure for many reasons: 1) It could not seat audiences large enough to generate a profit; 2) It was a difficult building to navigate and move around in, especially for the elderly and disabled; 3) It was difficult if not impossible to renovate it without changing the exterior; 4) The thermal inefficiency and cost to heat & cool was extraordinary; 5) No arts organization could justify the maintenance costs of such a building; and 6) The land on which it sits is far too valuable, and its highest & best use is arguably office (exclusively or mostly).

BDP, "unique" isn't what condemned this building, all of the factors I listed condemned the building. This doesn't indict Oklahoma Citians for not appreciating and supporting the arts or interesting architecture, it is a lesson for architects to make their structures functional and efficient. Remember that this building was sold to Rainey Williams' group by the Kirkpatrick Fund of the Oklahoma City Community Foundation, and it will be harder to find a larger patron of the arts in this town than John Kirkpatrick's grandson, Chris Keessee, who runs that fund.

This building was a work of art that was ironically unusable by any other artist who tried to occupy it. Think about that over the weekend.

[Spartan]

I am perplexed by this notion that office is the highest and best use, even/especially independent of site characteristics.

[kevinpate]

I am perplexed by this notion that office is the highest and best use, even/especially independent of site characteristics.

True, but once you add its location back to the mix, residential use makes a great deal of sense, even though it is headed another direction.
Beautiful, when properly maintained, park to the east.
New elementary school to the west
Excellent library a short stroll away.
Close in to many employment opportunities in a wide, wide range.

[SoonerBoy18]

Some people are actually saying that Oklahoma City needs stop building skyscappers because of the fact that we have so many tornadoes

[bchris02]

Some people are actually saying that Oklahoma City needs stop building skyscappers because of the fact that we have so many tornadoes

Skyscrapers are far less likely to suffer major damage from tornadoes than smaller structures even in a direct hit. Downtown Ft Worth got hit directly back in 1999 I think. Atlanta got hit even more recently than that. Events like May 3rd 1999 and May 20, 2013 are supposed to be extremely rare. A normal strength tornado hitting downtown would be bad but I think it would be mostly cosmetic damage. Miami and Salt Lake City have also been directly hit by tornadoes in their downtown. Surprisingly *knock on wood* OKC has not had a downtown tornado strike in recent history.

[okcpulse]

Oklahoma City has been building skyscrapers and mid rises since 1910. Not saying it won't happen, but to say that OKC should stop building skyscrapers because of tornadoes is very shortsighted.

I've said it before and I will say it again. It s not a matter of if but a matter of when densely populated areas of Dallas will get hit by an EF5. I hope it does not happen. And I hope Dallas is prepared. I hope they have a plan, because one life lost is one life too many. It bothers me that people slam others for choosing to live in Oklahoma when they should be looking south at Texas where DFW adds hundreds of thousands of new residents each decade to what is also tornado alley. The strikes are less frequent, but Dallas is not exempt from wedge tornadoes. I pray they do not get hit.

[kevinpate]

The only reason I can see for OKC to stay away from skyscrapers is if it instead had companies buying up dead, empty and surface parkign land and doing infill building of 3-`12 story structures on that land.

[Jim Kyle]

Surprisingly *knock on wood* OKC has not had a downtown tornado strike in recent history.

It's not exactly recent, but one went through the downtown area in the spring of 1959 and did minor cosmetic damage at SW 3 and Robinson. During most of its transit, however, it was aloft and didn't touch down. In the early 60s, another one passed just south of Main and Virginia; at that time the KTOK studios were at that location, and the news crew watched it pass by and described it on the air.

Somewhere I once had a photo of the one that went through downtown Atlanta that showed the funnel itself crossing Peachtree Street. Can't find it any more, though; probably on one of my unreadable backup tapes from the 80s/90s...

[Bellaboo]

Some people are actually saying that Oklahoma City needs stop building skyscappers because of the fact that we have so many tornadoes

Link ?

[Dustin]

Some people are actually saying that Oklahoma City needs stop building skyscappers because of the fact that we have so many tornadoes

These people probably also think the Devon Tower was a "waste of taxpayer money". Also, "We should stop investing downtown and start making the suburbs better!"

They really don't know how things work.

[soonerguru]

Some people are actually saying that Oklahoma City needs stop building skyscappers because of the fact that we have so many tornadoes

Have you been reading the comments section on Channel 9's website again? Always a treasure trove of intelligent commentary there.

[catch22]

Have you been reading the comments section on Channel 9's website again? Always a treasure trove of intelligent commentary there.

I think it is an excellent barometer of the public opinion. Or something..

[kwhey]

Yay. Another tall building in downtown. How about we fill up the other buildings first.

[PhiAlpha]

Um all the available class A space is full...

[ljbab728]

Um all the available class A space is full...

Spoil sports always bring up facts. LOL