OG&E Tower

[OKCRT]

Kevin, You make great points. But just to be clear, I support saving the Stage Center and re-purposing - period. Apart and aside from any other towers occupying the space. If we have money to give to corporations as "incentives" then there's money to offer non-profits to do something incredible with a renowned piece of art and architecture. The money could return in droves if it were a downtown museum and tourist dollars rolled in.

As I've said before, it's not a matter of "IF" we could do it - it's a matter of will and desire to preserve this structure. It CAN be saved. If we can turn dusty old, run down warehouses into what is now Bricktown (and I could give many other examples), we could make this structure world class. It's a matter of will and determination, not IF it could be done - we KNOW it can be done. And I believe it could be done and be a boost to Oklahoma City tourism - while preserving Johansen's masterpiece with a new lease on life and purpose.

Sure it can be saved. Anything (just about) can be saved. But who is going to pay for it? I think the RW proposal should be denied so that efforts can be made to save the Stage center. RW will hopefully sell the property the and then when no one steps up to take on the renovation then it can be demolished. Then Continental or some other Corp. can build a real World Class Skyscraper

[Spartan]

[QUOTE=SoonerDave;731428]

Kevin, I don't understand what you're getting at. What process is being abused?

The process of getting a permit to demolish a structure. The folks who get to have input on what goes on the cleared land is a different group and a different process. We've got some people trying to leverage their distaste for a structure some people have a peculiar predisposition to retaining into a bureaucratic maneuver. To me, that's abusing the process.

You're just saying that because you know their hands are tied even worse. To me, that's a using the process.

[Rover]

Kevin, You make great points. But just to be clear, I support saving the Stage Center and re-purposing - period. Apart and aside from any other towers occupying the space. If we have money to give to corporations as "incentives" then there's money to offer non-profits to do something incredible with a renowned piece of art and architecture. The money could return in droves if it were a downtown museum and tourist dollars rolled in.

As I've said before, it's not a matter of "IF" we could do it - it's a matter of will and desire to preserve this structure. It CAN be saved. If we can turn dusty old, run down warehouses into what is now Bricktown (and I could give many other examples), we could make this structure world class. It's a matter of will and determination, not IF it could be done - we KNOW it can be done. And I believe it could be done and be a boost to Oklahoma City tourism - while preserving Johansen's masterpiece with a new lease on life and purpose.

Not trying to be argumentative, but....

I challenge the idea that the structure itself can ever be anything but a cash negative and economically only valuable as a placeholder while the area around it becomes more and more valuable. We have had years and years to figure out a use that results in it paying for itself. And the longer it takes to make that determination the higher the cost of reconstruction goes. It seems to be getting farther and farther from that target, rather than closer.

Secondly, what in the world makes anyone think this will create tourism? It hasn't in the past and there is no evidence to support expectations that it will in the future. The database of those interested or curious enough to travel to OKC from afar, let alone from nearby, just to see this structure is really, really limited. This may be a local curiosity and a national/international relic of a specific architect or style, but it is far from a tourist attraction. Other than architectural historians, or fans of the architect, practically no one even knows this exists, and fewer would know it exists in OKC.

[SoonerDave]

Kevin, You make great points. But just to be clear, I support saving the Stage Center and re-purposing - period. Apart and aside from any other towers occupying the space. If we have money to give to corporations as "incentives" then there's money to offer non-profits to do something incredible with a renowned piece of art and architecture. The money could return in droves if it were a downtown museum and tourist dollars rolled in.

As I've said before, it's not a matter of "IF" we could do it - it's a matter of will and desire to preserve this structure. It CAN be saved. If we can turn dusty old, run down warehouses into what is now Bricktown (and I could give many other examples), we could make this structure world class. It's a matter of will and determination, not IF it could be done - we KNOW it can be done. And I believe it could be done and be a boost to Oklahoma City tourism - while preserving Johansen's masterpiece with a new lease on life and purpose.

With all due respect, zoo, the prior owners would beg to differ. There's a huge difference between practical capability and let's dream about it potential. The prior owners were about as forthright as they could be in soliciting proposals for various purposes, because they had no use for the building, the prior tenants had their effects ruined from the water damage the building sustained, and there were no resources to fix its unending problems. There were no takers, no backers, no practical support. Comparing the rehab of an old bricktown warehouse into something useful at retail to what's needed to make the SC useful for nearly any purpose again is an apples-to-atom-bombs comparison.

The point is, the silence created by the absence of backers for alternative uses was deafening. All the potential deep pockets know the reality - the building is beyond salvageable. The time for the SC has passed.

[Spartan]

The $20 million figure is fairly dubious.

[OKCSteel]

Stage Center is an eyesore and a money pit. It must go. The city gave all comers a year to come up with proposals that could save it or repurpose it. One proposal came in and it was not self sufficient. The proposal would have had the city paying to subsidize the proposal each and every year. The city then put it up for sale. They did what they could and no one came up with a true viable option for the site so it was put up for sale.

There is no reason for the demo permit to be denied or for anyone on here to be whining about still trying to save or repurpose Stage Center. It is dead and as such, should be demolished so the person who now owns it can get on with developing it.

[flintysooner]

The $20 million figure is fairly dubious.

Yeah. I heard closer to 30 or 40 million.

[Rover]

The $20 million figure is fairly dubious.

What do your sources indicate the true amount is?

[zookeeper]

There's so much misinformation on this thread that it's just too frustrating to participate in.

[SoonerDave]

You're just saying that because you know their hands are tied even worse. To me, that's a using the process.

Uhmmm, no, I'm saying that because....that's the way it is. Trying to superimpose a design review into the permit process is a de-facto abuse of the process. If there's something hamstringing that latter process, fix that process.

The other thing I'm going to say that's going to make some folks angry, and I'll apologize for it in advance, is that is no longer an issue except to a decreasing number of passionate, well-meaning, well-intentioned people. Its time to stop dragging this issue out. Trying to wedge life into the SC by virtue of the demo permit process isn't really helping anyone.

[kevinpate]

zookeeper, you are actually one of the folks I had specifically in mind when I noted a small number here truly want SC saved and rehabbed. And as noted, I once felt the same way. Mainly due to some really good memories from productions attended, and well, yeah, it's definitely a different bit of funky from most structures. I wish at times I hadn't lost my zeal for it, but it happened, and I've hit that settle for the memories stage. I know it bothers the tall and shiny devotees, but rather than it sit rotting, I really would be ok with a surface lot generating funds for a better project, or even short term to help the current owner fund his project is that help is beneficial.

We now return everyone to the birthing of kittens and burning of certain out of towners like me in effigy.

[Plutonic Panda]

There's so much misinformation on this thread that it's just too frustrating to participate in.

agreed. It's ridiculous and no one knows what is going to look like and are bashing it. EVEN IM DOING THAT! So I'm just trying to stay out of it until I see official renderings so I don't look like a fool.

I also think conceptual rendering are always a bit more ambitious than the final product and this concept kind of sucks, so the final design will likely be scaled down from this, so it is kind of understandable why people are Janet on this.

[coov23]

agreed. It's ridiculous and no one knows what is going to look like and are bashing it. EVEN IM DOING THAT! So I'm just trying to stay out of it until I see official renderings so I don't look like a fool.

I also think conceptual rendering are always a bit more ambitious than the final product and this concept kind of sucks, so the final design will likely be scaled down from this, so it is kind of understandable why people are Janet on this.

I think you're reading zookeeper wrong gee. He wants us, the taxpayer, to find the revamping of the Stage Center so the 1k people in the metro that care if it's still there will be happy. Not trying to make this political, but it sure does look like the minority in this issue are trying to get what they want over the masses. Seems very familiar to our PC political world we live in today.

Demo that piece of a building that's rotting so my tax payer money doesn't have to go to the funding of trying to keep hobos out of it. I have memories there, too. Doesn't change the fact that the building will never make a profit for the city and it's been useless for a long time now.

[Rover]

There's so much misinformation on this thread that it's just too frustrating to participate in.

Since you apparently know the real information, please share? What costs have you seen? What uses indicate at least a break-even? What tourist traffic will those uses create and where from? And the sources of your information?

[mkjeeves]

I've been to several business conventions. All of them had small, medium and large places for seminars.

[soonerguru]

Back on topic: the thing most disconcerting to me is the apparent misleading sales job by the developer. Whether or not you favor saving the Stage Center, it should concern you that someone could destroy an internationally significant piece of architecture by over promising what he/she intends to do with the property. I think his demolition permit should be put on hold until the public has a full understand of what he intends to do with this property. If he already has another investor lined up to build the second tower, he needs to let the public know about it. I'm very concerned with the document Pete posted and the ramifications of it.

[Teo9969]

Lease negotiations won't even begin seriously until (and unless) someone gets control of the property so that it can actually be developed.

…

Kestrel Investments owns and controls the property

[Teo9969]

Everyone needs to back off the bashing of rainey williams until we actually know what is going on. Everyone is just assuming right now and will look like idiots if it turns out into a good development.

I'm sorry, but there is no good development for this block that comes in under $200,000,000+. You can only squeeze so much out of $100,000,000 and I'm not convinced that even the very best use of $100M is enough for this particular lot of Oklahoma City. Plus we already know that "very best use" of $100M is not going to occur when a substantial portion of that is going to a parking garage.

[Paseofreak]

I think you'll find that by statute, the futiure use cannot be the basis for denial of a demo permit.

[flintysooner]

…

Kestrel Investments owns and controls the property

But Kestrel is unable to build anything on the property until the existing buildings are demolished which is obviously uncertain. The legal fees for lease negotiation for this project will be in the hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of dollars. Neither party will want to begin burning cash for the lease until the site is cleared.

Now once the way is cleared for the site to be developed then a lot of cash will be burned very rapidly including lease negotiations, engineering, appraisals, architectural and other costs.

Just the way it is done - no big mystery.

[catcherinthewry]

If we can turn dusty old, run down warehouses into what is now Bricktown (and I could give many other examples), we could make this structure world class.

If by "we" you mean the business people that developed Bricktown, then I agree. Here's the problem with your statement, though: The developers of Bricktown saw a way to make a profit and took the risk of developing. No one has been able to find a way to make a profit by making SC "world class", thus there is no incentive to take the risk to do so.

[zookeeper]

Just a couple of minutes, please?

First, thank you, Kevin, for recognizing that there truly are "true believers" for the possibilities for Stage Center that are complete and separate from any discussion about what would be replacing it. I appreciate that.

There seems to be little interest in anything that is public space for the public. There's all kinds of giveaways....I'm sorry, incentives....for office towers, basketball, even for companies that are hugely profitable and prosperous and don't need any assistance from the taxpayers. Don't think I disagree with all of that, I love the Thunder and what it has done for our city. My point is the lack of vision beyond a 50+ skyscraper for this property. I fail to understand why people can't use their imaginations with this structure and see the possibilities. I'm asked where the profit is going to come from, why tourists would visit OKC for something like a children's museum. (I never said they would come simply for the museum). The more attractions there are - the better we are as a city. Downtown and the current building would be perfect for a lot of things, that tourists would line up for. IF we just use our imagination. That building gets more attention and more neck craning from visitors than any other structure downtown except for the Devon Tower. No, I have no study for that, just years of witnessing it. I'm disappointed at how willing so many are at throwing away this building and making the same mistakes of the 60's and 70's. I posted way back the article from this last month's SLICE magazine, a picture and a short article with the headline, "You'll Miss Me When I'm Gone." I believe that. Do I have all the answers? No, I do not. But there are a lot of projects using taxpayer money that I don't have a good answer as to why it's being given away (except that it's going to the corporatocracy). I think there's room for a major public-private partnership here, one that would be a huge attraction rather than the limited uses of a stage theater.

I respect others viewpoints. I understand the polarizing look of the building. I really do. I only ask the same in return, and stop talking about how it has seen its day, there was a period for ideas and they were all rejected or withdrawn, the "nothing to see here, move along" attitude. I think once people realize we are serious about a re-purpose that would leave a lasting mark (with the cloud of flooding and demolition behind us) - we have a hidden treasure across the street from the Myriad Gardens. One that would compliment the public space and thrill children and others for many years to come. The can-do attitude is missing here. We all know why. Some are legitimate, some are greed because they've been salivating for this lot since the Devon Tower was announced. I'm speaking up for the public space - and imagination and possibilities.

No matter where you stand, thanks for your time in reading these last gasp words for public space and a bright future for 400 West Sheridan.

[Teo9969]

No doubt that zoo is right on this. There has been no serious community effort put into this building.

At the end of the day, people just don't care about having things that are unique. They want to be spoon-fed the same thing that every one else has. They'd rather have another shiny office tower that is absolutely unrecognizable to anyone other than the most ardent of skyscraper enthusiasts or people who have a basic knowledge of their region's skyscrapers.

So at the end of the day, the save stage-center crowd is wasting their breath, because the overwhelming majority of people simply don't have vision. Nobody can imagine making the best use of this, especially in OKC, because place-making is essentially non-existent here (and throughout this region). That's the difference between cities that have had centuries to develop and cities that have only had decades. I wish it were different, but it's not, and we're not the only American city making these mistakes.

[hoya]

I think you'll find that by statute, the future use cannot be the basis for denial of a demo permit.

Then we need to change the statute.

[bchris02]

No doubt that zoo is right on this. There has been no serious community effort put into this building.

At the end of the day, people just don't care about having things that are unique. They want to be spoon-fed the same thing that every one else has. They'd rather have another shiny office tower that is absolutely unrecognizable to anyone other than the most ardent of skyscraper enthusiasts or people who have a basic knowledge of their region's skyscrapers.

So at the end of the day, the save stage-center crowd is wasting their breath, because the overwhelming majority of people simply don't have vision. Nobody can imagine making the best use of this, especially in OKC, because place-making is essentially non-existent here (and throughout this region). That's the difference between cities that have had centuries to develop and cities that have only had decades. I wish it were different, but it's not, and we're not the only American city making these mistakes.

I bet if you took a poll, there would be more people that would support saving the Stage Center than tearing it down. However, its who has the money and power that gets to make the decisions.