OG&E Tower

[hoya]

We could really make this a cool building. I know a lot of people hate it, and that's part of what makes it valuable. It's a really weird structure. It's unique. People don't come to see it for two key reasons. First, it's not really in shape to be used right now. Second, we don't draw any attention to it. We have to incorporate it into the rest of the attractions downtown. Restore it and alter the landscaping around the thing to draw more people in, have something worth seeing inside, and you'll get more visitors. Right now we have a lot of trees around it, and their sole purpose is to hide the thing. Get rid of the trees, but up some lights and some video boards and people WILL go to see it.

Here's the thing, tourists want to see weird-ass architecture. If we celebrate it, then people who come to this city will remember it. Remember that Parisians hated the Eiffel Tower for decades and decades and decades. Now, Stage Center is not the Eiffel Tower, but it is far and away the most interesting looking thing we have in this city. I'm not even really concerned with out of town visitors, I think this could be a really cool thing for school field trips. I remember when I was a kid our class would come to the Arts Festival. Incorporating this and having a ton of weird art exhibits inside would be neat.

It took a long, long time before enough money came together to save the Skirvin, much longer than Stage Center has had. Don't be so quick to dismiss OKC's most eclectic possession.

[Rover]

Comparing this to the Eiffel Tower? Really? Obviously you've never been there if you think this is in any way as iconic as the Eiffel tower or that the economic or social importance is anywhere close or can even be used as an obtuse comparison.

So how many tourists will come to see this weird ass architecture and how much will they pay to do so? How much direct and indirect income would you expect the city to derive to offset costs? Please give us a viable economic argument?

[Spartan]

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

By what statute?

[Teo9969]

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.

I bet if you took a poll, most people would say C. "who cares?" given that option.

I bet if you then took a poll about whether or not the Thunder should trade Thabo Sefolosha or who should be voted off American Idol and included a C. "who cares?" option that the % of people who voted C. on the first question would trounce the % of people who voted C. on the second question.

[mkjeeves]

I bet if you took a poll, most people would say C. "who cares?" given that option.

I bet if you then took a poll about whether or not the Thunder should trade Thabo Sefolosha or who should be voted off American Idol and included a C. "who cares?" option that the % of people who voted C. on the first question would trounce the % of people who voted C. on the second question.

Who is Thabo Sefolosha? Nevermind. I don't care.

[Spartan]

No, don't trade Thabo!

[hoya]

Comparing this to the Eiffel Tower? Really? Obviously you've never been there if you think this is in any way as iconic as the Eiffel tower or that the economic or social importance is anywhere close or can even be used as an obtuse comparison.

So how many tourists will come to see this weird ass architecture and how much will they pay to do so? How much direct and indirect income would you expect the city to derive to offset costs? Please give us a viable economic argument?

I said it's not the same. But yes, I've been to the top of the Eiffel Tower. Cool structure. Still hated by a lot of people in Paris.

I'm not making an economic argument. I'm making a quality of life argument. We need more unique things in Oklahoma City. We need more museums. The city could renovate this for less than the cost of the Myriad Gardens renovation. The Gardens don't make money.

[SoonerDave]

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.

Were I gambling man, and I'm not, I'd mortgage the house and bet against you. The pro SC crowd has to realize that the overwhelming majority of the public doesn't genuflect when they drive by the place. This is a non-issue to most of the city.

I have absolutely no compunction in saying the place should be razed. Time for something new and beneficial to more than just a very narrow crowd of architecture enthusiasts.

[SoonerDave]

Then we need to change the statute.

Nope. That's what the design review process is for. If the design review process is broken, fix that.

[SoonerDave]

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.

Folks, the "Save the Stage Center" debate ended a while back. The place isn't salvageable. This politicking to abuse the demo permit process to superimpose some sort of pointless life support on the place is a waste of everyone's time and money.

[Spartan]

Folks, the "Save the Stage Center" debate ended a while back. The place isn't salvageable. This politicking to abuse the demo permit process to superimpose some sort of pointless life support on the place is a waste of everyone's time and money.

It ended with you on Day 1 since you were never interested. But you aren't the judge, jury, executioner just as I am not.

I am getting so tired of the pro-demolitionists speaking in abrasive absolutes. Why can't we stick to the topic at hand here?

[coov23]

It ended with you on Day 1 since you were never interested. But you aren't the judge, jury, executioner just as I am not.

I am getting so tired of the pro-demolitionists speaking in abrasive absolutes. Why can't we stick to the topic at hand here?

The anti-demolitionists are speaking in absolutes, as well. Just in the other end of the spectrum. No matter what decision is made, there's going to be a side in this debate that is upset.

[Spartan]

The anti-demolitionists are speaking in absolutes, as well. Just in the other end of the spectrum. No matter what decision is made, there's going to be a side in this debate that is upset.

Agreed. The real problem is that OKC's plan review process is so lacking that each side is denied the possibility of using leverage how they normally would in other cities, which hinders the ability for meeting in the middle and compromise.

Here in Cleveland I was negotiating before I came home for Xmas with preservationists in a downtown demolition and the chair of the Landmarks Commission who came out and said, "I'm just not seeing a plan here that is better than the building we already have, so your demolition permit will get a continuance until you make the improvements we've requested."

The developer came back two weeks later with the improvements made and got their demolition permit, really for a phenomenal development IMO that is 8-stories tall with a zero lot line and decent street interaction. The point is very rarely is the demolition of a historic landmark totally removed from the planned replacement. How you can have a reasonable debate here with these two aspects legally removed is utterly absurd. The typical compromise that would play out ANYWHERE else with normal laws would be that the historic landmark be used as leverage to get a better replacement proposal, which will then move forward in the name of "progress."

Here "history" is pitted against "progress" statutorily. While each side will understandably just try to do what they can within the legal framework, like I said, I just hope that it doesn't eliminate the potential for a middle ground. The problem of course is that said middle ground may not involve Rainey Williams unless he suddenly comes into real money and can deliver on "world class" whatever that means.

[shawnw]

So why hasn't anyone started a poll for demo/don't demo/don't care?

[Richard at Remax]

This thread needs a somber violen playing playing on repeat

[Spartan]

So why hasn't anyone started a poll for demo/don't demo/don't care?

Or DONT TRADE THABO

[RickOKC]

After reading pages of posts, news articles, and looking at renderings and petitions, I must confess that I'm very glad to leave this decision in the hands of qualified people who will have each side's case presented to them. I know that this a forum - so everybody is supposed to have an opinion and question everybody's motives and vilify the opposition. But I have to say - like I heard Steve say recently - I think I could make a compelling case for either perspective. And good people are on both sides of the argument. The process may be flawed, but I'm thankful we at least have one. I say, "May the best side (and by that I mean, the best side for the long term benefit of Oklahoma City) win."

[OKVision4U]

We could really make this a cool building. I know a lot of people hate it, and that's part of what makes it valuable. It's a really weird structure. It's unique. People don't come to see it for two key reasons. First, it's not really in shape to be used right now. Second, we don't draw any attention to it. We have to incorporate it into the rest of the attractions downtown. Restore it and alter the landscaping around the thing to draw more people in, have something worth seeing inside, and you'll get more visitors. Right now we have a lot of trees around it, and their sole purpose is to hide the thing. Get rid of the trees, but up some lights and some video boards and people WILL go to see it.

Here's the thing, tourists want to see weird-ass architecture. If we celebrate it, then people who come to this city will remember it. Remember that Parisians hated the Eiffel Tower for decades and decades and decades. Now, Stage Center is not the Eiffel Tower, but it is far and away the most interesting looking thing we have in this city. I'm not even really concerned with out of town visitors, I think this could be a really cool thing for school field trips. I remember when I was a kid our class would come to the Arts Festival. Incorporating this and having a ton of weird art exhibits inside would be neat.

It took a long, long time before enough money came together to save the Skirvin, much longer than Stage Center has had. Don't be so quick to dismiss OKC's most eclectic possession.

In my many conversations about OKC w/ people that are outside Oklahoma, I have never mentioned the Stage Center before. Not because I am against the arts ( not ), but it just isn't THAT piece of history or significance to our city. If they save some and move it to different location, fine. But Rainey should not have to be held hostage w/ this project... let's get it going either way.

[OKCRT]

I think people are getting off topic a bit. This isn't about saving the Stage center. This is about getting a World Class Skyscraper built on that site. RW isn't doing that so there's no reason for him to demolish the SC. BUT,there's no reason to try and garner support to save and rehab the SC because no one is going to do that. It's been tried. We just need to get this property out of current owners hands so we have a chance to get a World Class project done.

Lets not lose sight of the real objective here folks.

[SoonerDave]

It ended with you on Day 1 since you were never interested. But you aren't the judge, jury, executioner just as I am not.

As a citizen of OKC, I am abjectly interested, and my interest does not diminish nor become marginalized merely because you have unliaterally decided I'm on the wrong end of the argument.

I am getting so tired of the pro-demolitionists speaking in abrasive absolutes. Why can't we stick to the topic at hand here?

Just as I am tired of the anti-demolitionists speaking in their own kind of absolutes, simulatneously assuming a presumptive moral high ground by encouraging a usurpation of a logsitical, procedural process to achieve their own ends.

More specifically, the topic is about getting a demo permit issued. There is no reason not to issue the permit as requested.

[Spartan]

That was one of the loveliest "I know you are but what am I"a that I've seen just to speak to the maturity level of th back and forth we have here.

It's time for us all to sit on this thread until some actual new ideas or new developments occur.

[zookeeper]

I beg to differ with anyone claiming it's off-topic to talk about saving the Stage Center in this thread. As long as this world renowned structure is still standing and its fate is still being determined by a public process - it is perfectly on-topic.

I'm also not against "progress" or against a world-class skyscraper. A world-class skyscraper can go many places downtown. Some of my words have been turned around.
Here is my post again.

And remember, the only "official" determination at this point (posted again below) and passed along to the Design Review Committee is very clear. They thought saving Stage Center was very much on topic.

[betts]

I see better reason to build a new tower in place of the Stage Center than I do to allow its demolition before a plan has been approved and funding is in place. I don't want the Stage Center destroyed, but I certainly don't want it to become a surface parking lot for two-plus years for a project no one has certainty will happen.

[BoulderSooner]

But that is not legally possible to inforce

[David]

In that case the question probably needs to be: how do we change that? If the problem is the city plan review process as Spartan has been saying, is that process something we need to start lobbying the city council to update?