Poll: Demolish Stage Center?

[shawnw]

Should the architecturally acclaimed, but functionally incapacitated Stage Center building be demolished?

[Plutonic Panda]

I voted yes, however I do NOT think it is an eyesore No whatever is built should have a display or at least a nice picture of the Stage Center in remembrance in--what I consider at least to be--it's honor.

[Spartan]

Bump. Need to get more people to see this and vote...

[shawnw]

Yeah, I'm very surprised by it so far. Was sure it would be pretty evenly split.

[Urbanized]

There should have been a fourth option; "don't tear it down yet, use denial of a demolition permit to force a different level of redevelopment of that location."

On this board THAT is what is driving the no votes and skewing the numbers. There are few actual advocates of preservation for the sake of preservation here.

[cagoklahoma]

I voted yes, but I do think that in 25 years many of us may regret our decision.

[shawnw]

I was personally most interested discerning the preservation for the sake of preservation vote and am surprised by the low turnout. I truly thought there were more.

Based on the diatribe on the Stage Center thread I have no doubt that a block demo for higher use vote would be unanimous or close to it.

[Urbanized]

I've already accepted its fate. I would prefer preservation for the sake of preservation (with an identified user and funded maintenance plan), but that would require an altruistic champion with deep pockets and a love for architecture, and sadly I think OKC is just not up to that task. Now that the "tear it down" cacophony is reaching a crescendo, it becomes near-impossible to stop that train.

That said, it's ridiculous how everyone is obsessing over the need to redevelop or empty this space RIGHT THE HELL NOW - like it is somehow holding back progress in downtown - when smoking holes, parking lots and other available development sites litter all of downtown. If that building stood as-is, it would be another decade AT LEAST before we ran out of other options for office development in the CBD.

Oh, and THEN you have C2S land - acres and acres of it - to consider. A shortage of development options is the OPPOSITE of OKC's problem right now.

[Just the facts]

I voted yes - because is it is an example of poor land-use. If it was being proposed today it would never be allowed downtown and the very people trying to save it would be the most vocal in opposing it (cough cough - the Deep Deuce Springhill Suites).

[shawnw]

I don't disagree with you really, from the why this land right now perspective (because there is definitely no shortage of options), but let's say we were somehow able to cancel the sale to Rainey this afternoon. What would be the reasonable next step? The land reverts back to OCCF and they're on the hook for maintenance and tax costs indefinitely? OCURA buys it from OCCF or Rainey and pays for maintenance and taxes indefinitely?

Maybe indefinitely is unreasonable, and if so what's the acceptable amount of time to wait? Until SC rots to the ground? Five years? Ten? 36? Just curious how long it would take for everyone to be agreeable that literally no one on Earth is willing to "save" it. I'm actually okay with waiting if we can define something short of "forever" as the acceptable time period to wait.

I know many would say "we only want to wait for a higher use and that could be tomorrow". Well, remember, for the purposes of this poll, I'm arguing strictly for or against preservation for preservations sake. Because if you're simply saying don't demo it now because this project is not "world class" enough, you've entered an extremely subjective/gray area where no set of defined parameters will make everyone happy. As we've seen, one mans world class is another mans trailer park. Just trying specifically not to turn this into a duplicate of what's going on at the Stage Center Tower thread (pretty please)...


(disclosure: I still don't know OCURA's funding stream or how it works in general)

[lasomeday]

nm

[kevinpate]

Sorry, not voting for a choice that doesn't reflect why I feel as I feel.
It isn't (well, shouldn't be) an eyesore.
It isn't that it is a gem (though it was unique before it was abandoned)
It isn't something I am unaware of.

It is a building no one with the means to preserve is willing to preserve. More the pity.

However, that being the case, and being a reasonable fan of folks doing what they will with their own property within the confines of the law, it is time for it to go because the owner wants to do something else with his property. I can not join in the with the camp that believes folks with zero skin in the game possess some inalienable right to to demand a property owner build tall and shiny to their satisfaction or be held hostage until he does or until he sells to someone who will. Sorry, that's just not my kind of parade and I can't ride on the float.

[Urbanized]

I voted yes - because is it is an example of poor land-use. If it was being proposed today it would never be allowed downtown and the very people trying to save it would be the most vocal in opposing it (cough cough - the Deep Deuce Springhill Suites).

There are many examples of poor land use that stand on their own merits architecturally. Pretty much anything ever designed by Le Corbusier. Most of Frank Lloyd Wright's portfolio. Our own city government and State Capitol buildings. Doesn't mean they should be torn down. Not everything has to be about land use; it is OK for architecture to be celebrated for the sake of architecture and even worthwhile and instructive for it to exist to demonstrate where even great architects meandered from the urban path.

It's unfair and myopic to equate SC with a junky hotel property simply because neither fronts the street. Sometimes you have to be able to look past the tree in front of you, JTF, and see the entire forest.

[lasomeday]

nm

[shawnw]

Don't get me wrong I definitely agree that there are many many examples of architecture worth saving for its own sake. But there is a cost to that, however unfortunate. Who covers that cost, and if the answer is no one, then what?

[Urbanized]

I have no answer, which is why I said I have made my peace with it. This town is not up to the task of saving it. It's cultural.

[shawnw]

Agreed.

[Just the facts]

Sometimes you have to be able to look past the tree in front of you, JTF, and see the entire forest.

Ironically, I think am the one looking at the entire forest and not the single trees.

Jane Jacobs wrote about this exact situation in her opposition to the Lincoln Center and she turned out to be exactly right.

[HangryHippo]

This is why I am never fighting for anything in this city again. People don't care about living somewhere with character, they want a baby Dallas not OKC with its own rich history and unique character.

Haha, okay then. If losing Stage Center means that OKC doesn't care about rich history or character, then you seriously need some perspective.

[OKCisOK4me]

I voted yes, but I do think that in 25 years many of us may regret our decision.

I've been alive for 25+ years and of that 25+ years I've regretted the darn thing was ever built.

[Urbanized]

Ironically, I think am the one looking at the entire forest and not the single trees.

Jane Jacobs wrote about this exact situation in her opposition to the Lincoln Center and she turned out to be exactly right.

So then...you would support the demolition of City Hall and the Civic Center? I am all for stopping poor land use before it happens. That is absolutely correct and should ALWAYS be our goal going forward, especially downtown, and especially in light of what has transpired here for decades. That said, when a building achieves a status of arguable national or international importance, it transcends that discussion. Lots of people hate(d) Warhol, too.

[Urbanized]

Haha, okay then. If losing Stage Center means that OKC doesn't care about rich history or character, then you seriously need some perspective.

You're right. It doesn't necessarily mean those things. It only means that as a community we place very little value on architecture and the built environment, which is a bummer in its own right.

[Just the facts]

So then...you would support the demolition of City Hall and the Civic Center? I am all for stopping poor land use before it happens. That is absolutely correct and should ALWAYS be our goal going forward, especially downtown, and especially in light of what has transpired here for decades. That said, when a building achieves a status of arguable national or international importance, it transcends that discussion. Lots of people hate(d) Warhol, too.

The Civic District is different in my mind because they are public buildings that should be built to a different standard than private structures, but if those buildings were abandoned and obsolete to the point that they could never be used as anything ever again then I think replacement would be the next step. The problem with Stage Center is that it never crossed the line from Work of Art to Art that Works, so in that respect I actually see it as failed architecture.

[shawnw]

The problem with Stage Center is that it never crossed the line from Work of Art to Art that Works, so in that respect I actually see it as failed architecture.

Been trying to figure out how to say this...

[kevinpate]

... The problem with Stage Center is that it never crossed the line from Work of Art to Art that Works, so in that respect I actually see it as failed architecture.

(Oklahoma CIty) A nail was obliterated today when a hammer struck it squarely, cleanly and with great force.