OG&E Tower

[hoya]

But that is not legally possible to enforce

Then that needs to change right now.

Just because the rules are set up a certain way doesn't mean that we as citizens have to agree with them, or be satisfied.

[Dubya61]

Rainey Williams owns the site. That's done. He can now do with the site, for the most part, as he wishes. If he wanted, he could probably tear down stage center, and then build a replica of stage center that wouldn't leak. Would probably be cheaper than actually fixing stage center. That said, he's building $100M tower (and then some). OG&E has probably signed some good faith agreement to be his primary tenant. There's no bidding process at this point, short of OG&E scrapping their plans and Rainey finding a different tenant, but there's still no bidding involved in that case.

What if a new Stage Center Theater were rebuilt? I really like this idea, the more I think on it. What if the way to save Stage Center is to duplicate it somewhere else? It's not the actual items used to make it and the way they were put together in the '70s that makes it unique. It's the design. Why don't we just rebuild Stage Center Theater ... somewhere else?

[Jim Kyle]

What if a new Stage Center Theater were rebuilt? I really like this idea, the more I think on it. What if the way to save Stage Center is to duplicate it somewhere else? It's not the actual items used to make it and the way they were put together in the '70s that makes it unique. It's the design. Why don't we just rebuild Stage Center Theater ... somewhere else?

That makes far too much sense to be acceptable to folk who hate ANY wrecking ball that's not being ridden by a young female exhibitionist...

But I, at least, like it. If the design has any use at all for any purpose, starting over with it from scratch could definitely avoid many if not most of the problems that make the current version impractical to preserve!

[Just the facts]

What if a new Stage Center Theater were rebuilt? I really like this idea, the more I think on it. What if the way to save Stage Center is to duplicate it somewhere else? It's not the actual items used to make it and the way they were put together in the '70s that makes it unique. It's the design. Why don't we just rebuild Stage Center Theater ... somewhere else?

I proposed this as a solution 2 years ago and it went over like a lead balloon. Maybe it was the messenger and not the message.

[OkieNate]

What if a new Stage Center Theater were rebuilt? I really like this idea, the more I think on it. What if the way to save Stage Center is to duplicate it somewhere else? It's not the actual items used to make it and the way they were put together in the '70s that makes it unique. It's the design. Why don't we just rebuild Stage Center Theater ... somewhere else?

I agree with this and have stated previously this is what would be the best for all. Rebuild it with all reusable parts in the new city park where it cant be messed with and clear the land for Raineys parking garage.

[shawnw]

I agree with this and have stated previously this is what would be the best for all. Rebuild it with all reusable parts in the new city park where it cant be messed with and clear the land for Raineys parking garage.

Given that Hargrave is not even entertaining the idea of saving/incorporating the Film Exchange, there's low probability of a rebuilt SC going in the park. I vote for the adventure district personally, but am not strongly attached to that idea...

[Urbanized]

Why would you spend tens of millions of dollars (or more) to rebuild something you already have, and a thing that never resonated with the community to begin with? That's folly.

As for "relocating" SC, people don't understand that it is probably 80+% monumental reinforced concrete. The only "relocatable" parts are some ramps, walkways, and metal boxes that obscure air conditioners and mechanicals. The fact that so many people think it could be easily relocated or replicated, that it seems light, airy and almost portable is actually a testament to the architect and part of what makes the building notable.

[Dubya61]

Why would you spend tens of millions of dollars (or more) to rebuild something you already have, and a thing that never resonated with the community to begin with? That's folly.

1) Assuming the cost of land were negligible, what would it cost to construct Johansen's Mummers Theater from scratch? I don't think it would be 20 million +, would it? I genuinely don't know.
2) Perhaps it didn't resonate with the community to begin with, but maybe it was the site, poor timing, something else, I don't know, but it certain resonates with a few people here. There's this one guy over on another thread who thinks that the construct is a building that has achieved a status of arguable national or international importance and that we should place value on architecture and the built environment.

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.

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.

As for "relocating" SC, people don't understand that it is probably 80+% monumental reinforced concrete. The only "relocatable" parts are some ramps, walkways, and metal boxes that obscure air conditioners and mechanicals. The fact that so many people think it could be easily relocated or replicated, that it seems light, airy and almost portable is actually a testament to the architect and part of what makes the building notable.

I don't advocate relocating it. I advocate replicating it, so that this piece of property would no longer carry the stigmata of some part of our OKC psyche that we'll lose to a corporate "tower". I believe we should raze it and build it from scratch. After all, the unique nature of the building isn't that it exists at the corner of Sheridan and Hudson. It's the design that's remarkable. If, for posterity purposes, you wanted to include the original tunnels in the second coming of the Mummer's Theater, then great, but just an extra benefit, not the goal. And it doesn't have to be done today, but if there's impetus to "save" the Mummers Theater, then it would be best to rebuild it while there's some tangible will.
Is it folly to replicate it? Ask those who like the building. Ask those who think it's part of what makes OKC great. Ask those who would be sorry to see it razed. I don't think it's folly. I think it's a good testament to OKC recognizing that we don't want to continue with the Pei Plan, but we DO want to continue to progress forward.
An interesting question to ask would be, would a viable Mummers Theater resonate with the arts crowd or some theater company and would it ever be a good part of the OKC community that didn't hemorrhage money if it were in working order?

[Teo9969]

Why would you spend tens of millions of dollars (or more) to rebuild something you already have, and a thing that never resonated with the community to begin with? That's folly.

As for "relocating" SC, people don't understand that it is probably 80+% monumental reinforced concrete. The only "relocatable" parts are some ramps, walkways, and metal boxes that obscure air conditioners and mechanicals. The fact that so many people think it could be easily relocated or replicated, that it seems light, airy and almost portable is actually a testament to the architect and part of what makes the building notable.

Relocating all of it in form is certainly not going to happen. Rebuilding the thing (and 10s of millions of dollars seems to be an overestimation…I'd bet closer to right around $10/15M) doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. The lot on which it sits has never been significant to the architecture. I think as long as it were built somewhere nearish downtown, that it would serve its original architectural purpose which seems largely to be independent of its surroundings anyway (which tended to be the thought process across many of the arts at that time). That's why in the Park or near the park, or down by the boathouse or near the River in general would be a great place for a rebuild. It would still have the backdrop of downtown, and it could have a more strategic concentration of development surrounding the Stage Center that could open up the ability for the Stage Center to interact more with its surroundings.

[shawnw]

I didn't think about the boathouse before. Might not be a bad idea given the angular shapes. BUT not at the sacrifice of any of the master plan items, so I like that idea if we can find a place down there.

[Bellaboo]

I proposed this as a solution 2 years ago and it went over like a lead balloon. Maybe it was the messenger and not the message.

I also brought this up, to move a few sections of it to the new park......just didn't get any traction either.

[David]

If nobody with the money to do so wanted to renovate it, imaging that there are people out there who would pay to rebuild it is a pipe dream.

[OKCisOK4me]

Can we change the name of this thread to 'What May Crop Up on the Stage Center Site'? Cause I still open this thread thinking I'll read valuable information...

[UnFrSaKn]

Can we change the name of this thread to 'What May Crop Up on the Stage Center Site'? Cause I still open this thread thinking I'll read valuable information...

Like

[OkieNate]

Can we change the name of this thread to 'What May Crop Up on the Stage Center Site'? Cause I still open this thread thinking I'll read valuable information...

If you have valuable information please share. Otherwise what harm does open conversation do? What do you think about relocating SC? Or are you in the "just get rid of the damn thing" camp? We all know nothing new or exciting will happen until after the meeting Thursday...

[OKVision4U]

If Rainey was needing to gain momentum w/ his project, he would be more out-front w/ his proposal. Since OG&E is ( 50 - 100 % ) part of this deal, then there may be a couple of reason why Rainey is "less" visible w/ his plans.

1. Rainey is still needing to put the final pieces together regarding his finances and needs more time for obvious reasons...needing capital. If so, then most likely the project will be more moderate in scale & design.

2. Or, since OG&E is looking to be a "sole" tennant in this tower, and needing more space than the "original renderings" would indicate. Not wanting to hear the nagging until it is absolutely neccessary by building a large tower (john q public), they wait until the concrete is ready to pour.

I feel it may be the latter. If he does have OG&E, then his financing should be inplace to move this forward and he would still want to have a PR buzz with this project. ...but no buzz? that is even more reason to think they are controlling their PR until the right time to announce a Large Tower ( 30 - 40 stories ). ?????

[OKCisOK4me]

If you have valuable information please share. Otherwise what harm does open conversation do? What do you think about relocating SC? Or are you in the "just get rid of the damn thing" camp? We all know nothing new or exciting will happen until after the meeting Thursday...

If you go to skyscraperpage.com, specific projects are usually listed as an address or called what the former site was known as until the official name becomes available. The title of this thread is misleading and, yes, just a bunch of open discussion about hampster tubes and boxes. A lot of this open discussion could be transferred to a new thread called 'Save Stage Center Site'. Agreed?

[CuatrodeMayo]

While the situation is somewhat different, here is a comparable situation in Portland: Michael Graves's Portland Building Faces Demolition Threat - Architect Magazine

[jccouger]

Rebuilding the stage center in the new C2S shore park is a brilliant idea, and would actually create a sense of place for this district. With the myriad botanical gardens tube to the north, the skydance bridge to the south, and the Stage center a part of the park we would now have a "unconventional art district". It could influence the design of all future developments around the park and create the most unique district in our entire city. I'm all for this idea! If they agreed to rebuild the stage center then I'd finally be able to accept the less then stellar conceptual design for the Rainey parking garage.

[OkieNate]

If you go to skyscraperpage.com, specific projects are usually listed as an address or called what the former site was known as until the official name becomes available. The title of this thread is misleading and, yes, just a bunch of open discussion about hampster tubes and boxes. A lot of this open discussion could be transferred to a new thread called 'Save Stage Center Site'. Agreed?

I don't disagree. Yet, it's all relative, is it not? Also this is OKCTalk, not skyscraperpage, although I think thread title by address is a good idea.

[Urbanized]

While the situation is somewhat different, here is a comparable situation in Portland: Michael Graves's Portland Building Faces Demolition Threat - Architect Magazine

Thanks for posting that. Seems about right.

[UnFrSaKn]

Posted in the other thread also.

Pros & Cons: Stage Center's future takes center stage | NewsOK.com

Supporters seek to save Oklahoma City's Stage Center | NewsOK.com

[Pete]

This recent photos shows how the school -- which has now reached full height -- will relate to this site:

[Urbanized]

1) Assuming the cost of land were negligible, what would it cost to construct Johansen's Mummers Theater from scratch? I don't think it would be 20 million +, would it? I genuinely don't know.

Well, considering the fact that everyone accepted estimates of $10 million to renovate an existing building and $20 million to make ready for arts groups, and accepted these figures without questioning them, I would say that a "guesstimate" of perhaps tens of millions TO REBUILD IT FROM SCRATCH doesn't seem ridiculous.

Is it folly to replicate it? Ask those who like the building. Ask those who think it's part of what makes OKC great. Ask those who would be sorry to see it razed.

I fall squarely into all three groups. I think it's folly. The building is either a treasure where it sits, or it shouldn't be repeated. Sometimes we have to make grown-up choices.

[Pete]

BTW, in the video attached to Steve's two new articles today, he says "proposed 16-18 story tower".

Don't know if something has changed or if that was just a slip.