OG&E Tower

[Rover]

Just curious. If Rainey's demo request is denied and he is forced to sell to someone else who then does get a demo permit, does it open the door to a lawsuit? If a decision to deny demo is made, how then can it be overturned later? SC is either significant enough to be preserved, or it isn't. That decision shouldn't be based on what follows. Seems to me it should be a once and for all decision.

[Paseofreak]

The denial rec was based specifically on the provisions the existing structure should be preserved and protected based on historical improtance. What might come after is not a consideration in the denial rec. It is based on what is there.

Contrary to what some are turning that into, there is no process for the denial to be shield to a development someone does not like, or to compel a better, bigger, whatever development.
Read your final sentence again. You sum up how most are fine with denial, but ignore the why of the denial and that potential impact.

Either the structure needs to be protected from demo based on its historic importance, or it does not. If not, then whether what comes after is the current proposal, or a surface lot, or a p-garage, the demo should not be denied. If folks want tall and shiny as a minimum standard in the CBD, they need to have that written in by their elected leadership,and those their leadership hire.
Otherwise, any currently confirming use may be unpopular, but that is not the same as being improper.

kevinpate, you and I seem to be on the exact same page. You are a refreshing voice of reason that seems to get what is actually happening. I wish that folks would do some research on how this works as it is written in the regulations. It's all spelled out above. The demolition application must be decided without respect to what is proposed to take it's place.

Without any intention to put words in anyone's mouth, Rainey Williams bought this property from the private owners, without any legal right to public oversight of the transaction. He bought it under no restrictions beyond the current regulations on the books. I'm all for a much better Oklahoma City, but the shrill cry from the shiny and tall, and the preservationists, each calling for someone else to spend private funds to meet their expectations is stomach churning.

From the moment I arrived here in OKC in 2004 I've been intrigued with Stage Center, but it is no longer functional and apparently will cost tens of millions to rehabilitate with no defined financially viable purpose. What is proposed will most certainly meet the minimums set by current regulations. What it will replace is likely to found in conflict with the recently passed "Blighted Properties" regulations.

If you find this unacceptable, then you should get in contact with your local representatives to establish new standards for development for these "super valuable" properties enhanced by public investment, but you can't go backwards in time and set new standards on the basis Of disappointment with a few conceptual renderings and limited statements, or anything else, for that matter.

Kevin, you are likely far more eloquent and concise than I.

[Spartan]

Just curious. If Rainey's demo request is denied and he is forced to sell to someone else who then does get a demo permit, does it open the door to a lawsuit? If a decision to deny demo is made, how then can it be overturned later? SC is either significant enough to be preserved, or it isn't. That decision shouldn't be based on what follows. Seems to me it should be a once and for all decision.

Don't take this too seriously because I'll probably never get the chance to take a look at the issues it has, but the most exculpable distinction would be that it isn't too far gone yet, but in the future may be.

[betts]

I don't see why we can't tell him demolition will not be approved until he has financing in place and is ready to break ground. What proof do we have that this development will even take place, much less be approved? If they're not going to start until 2015, wait until then to demo it. Why destroy a structure people love prematurely? It's a lot easier to get the DDRC to accept a mediocre plan for a vacant lot. Is that why?

[kevinpate]

Don't take this too seriously because I'll probably never get the chance to take a look at the issues it has, but the most exculpable distinction would be that it isn't too far gone yet, but in the future may be.

With respect Spartan, I don't take it too seriously. More as wishful thinking. I've not read the damage report, but as I understand matters, back around the time the structure was deemed too far gone to rehabilitate, there was an extensive report put together to lay out why this was so. It's my understanding that the present owner relied on that same report as part of the demo application.
The simply fact a once iconic structure was left idle for years, while also spending 100 grand or so a year to keep it secured from urban campers and vandals, suggests there are significant problems.

To deny an otherwise appropriate demo app based on the building should be preserved in no way supports it would be appropriate to let it fall further into disrepair. If the govt. intends to protect the structure, it may be assuming a responsibility to step up and do so since it is in effect restricting the private property rights of the owner at that point. Frankly, I wouldn't displeased if it were to be put in the let's do it mode ala the Skirvin. I simply do not see it happening for this structure. If it is not truly going to be protected, then it has been left to decay for three years already, over actually, and it is time to move on. Protect or raze. Protect to raze another day is not a valid option for denying the permit this go around.

[Paseofreak]

Because it's not in the evaluation criteria set forth in the regulation. Please, quit trying to impose unwritten requirements upon a developer. If we want higher standards we have to adopt them in accordance with the written procedures. I do think we need these standards adopted, or OCURA needs to be selectively involved, but only if the current landowner is very fairly compensated. However, until recently, OCURA has a pretty shabby track record, so I'm not staking the future on that.

[flintysooner]

I don't see why we can't tell him demolition will not be approved until he has financing in place and is ready to break ground. What proof do we have that this development will even take place, much less be approved? If they're not going to start until 2015, wait until then to demo it. Why destroy a structure people love prematurely? It's a lot easier to get the DDRC to accept a mediocre plan for a vacant lot. Is that why?

In order to get financing the developer has to have leases. In order to have leases the developer has to have a project that can be built. In order to have a project that can be built the developer has to have the land and the zoning.

The developer probably has some sort of letter of intent right now and enough confidence that the existing structure can be demolished.

If permission to demolish is denied then that's a pretty good sign to other developers that the property is not yet suitable for development.

[Spartan]

With respect Spartan, I don't take it too seriously. More as wishful thinking. I've not read the damage report, but as I understand matters, back around the time the structure was deemed too far gone to rehabilitate, there was an extensive report put together to lay out why this was so. It's my understanding that the present owner relied on that same report as part of the demo application.
The simply fact a once iconic structure was left idle for years, while also spending 100 grand or so a year to keep it secured from urban campers and vandals, suggests there are significant problems.

To deny an otherwise appropriate demo app based on the building should be preserved in no way supports it would be appropriate to let it fall further into disrepair. If the govt. intends to protect the structure, it may be assuming a responsibility to step up and do so since it is in effect restricting the private property rights of the owner at that point. Frankly, I wouldn't displeased if it were to be put in the let's do it mode ala the Skirvin. I simply do not see it happening for this structure. If it is not truly going to be protected, then it has been left to decay for three years already, over actually, and it is time to move on. Protect or raze. Protect to raze another day is not a valid option for denying the permit this go around.

It's not wishful thinking. I just don't put a lot of trust in a report that was mailed in.

With all due respect as well, you're freaking out over a building decaying for three years. Experienced preservationists would scoff at that.

[mblues]

The denial rec was based specifically on the provisions the existing structure should be preserved and protected based on historical improtance. What might come after is not a consideration in the denial rec. It is based on what is there.

Contrary to what some are turning that into, there is no process for the denial to be shield to a development someone does not like, or to compel a better, bigger, whatever development.
Read your final sentence again. You sum up how most are fine with denial, but ignore the why of the denial and that potential impact.

Either the structure needs to be protected from demo based on its historic importance, or it does not. If not, then whether what comes after is the current proposal, or a surface lot, or a p-garage, the demo should not be denied. If folks want tall and shiny as a minimum standard in the CBD, they need to have that written in by their elected leadership,and those their leadership hire.
Otherwise, any currently confirming use may be unpopular, but that is not the same as being improper.

I agree with Kevin on this and there is one more side to Kevin's argument that has not really been touched on, but one that I believe Kevin was intending to make...IF, the demo is denied based on preservation...THEN someone comes along with a "better" project and SC gets approved for demo...the Arts groups may now have possible LEGAL GROUNDS to bring suite based on ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT. If that were to happen the SC could be left as is with no one willing to take on the millions for rehab, then what do we do?

[Paseofreak]

Really? The method of delivery, most likely because it was completed a bit early is your basis for dispute? Complete idiocy!

[Spartan]

I agree with Kevin on this and there is one more side to Kevin's argument that has not really been touched on, but one that I believe Kevin was intending to make...IF, the demo is denied based on preservation...THEN someone comes along with a "better" project and SC gets approved for demo...the Arts groups may now have possible LEGAL GROUNDS to bring suite based on ESTABLISHED PRECEDENT. If that were to happen the SC could be left as is with no one willing to take on the millions for rehab, then what do we do?

If this is analyzed from every issue and there is no legal way fr a public board to salvage this block from development purgatory, then a moratorium should be pursued to get some better ordinances.

Like I said where there's a will there's a way. Zoning was uphold by SCOTUS almost a hundred years ago. City of Euclid v. Ambler. That's a settled issue. Public boards can review development projects.

The key here is that there is no reason any agents if Rainey Williams should be holding the public hostage w legal threats. That won't fly. We have as many rights as he does because citizens are equals.

[Paseofreak]

If this is analyzed from every issue and there is no legal way fr a public board to salvage this block from development purgatory, then a moratorium should be pursued to get some better ordinances.

Like I said where there's a will there's a way. Zoning was uphold by SCOTUS almost a hundred years ago. City of Euclid v. Ambler. That's a settled issue. Public boards can review development projects.

Zoning that was in place before the development was proposed, not after the fact.

[Spartan]

Zoning that was in place before the development was proposed, not after the fact.

That's when cities invoke moratoriums. The City of Akron did one recently, in fact.

[Paseofreak]

I get that, but it's not fair, and it's subject to the interpretation of the courts. They most often find for the developer, with a few concessions.

[Just the facts]

Frankly, I wouldn't displeased if it were to be put in the let's do it mode ala the Skirvin.

If you want to use the Skirvin as an example you would have to include that the Skirvin wouldn't be able to rent any rooms out after the rehab. Even if the Stage Center was rebuilt to its former glory there is still the problem that no arts organization in the City wants to use it. Once again, it would be all dressed up with nowhere to go, but now instead of costing $100K to secure it, it would cost way more.

[Paseofreak]

If you want to use the Skirvin as an example you would have to include that the Skirvin wouldn't be able to rent any rooms out after the rehab

Huh? I don't get this statement, as they very surely do.

[hoya]

I have come around on Stage Center. I think it is worth saving unless something comes along that absolutely knocks our socks off. It's architecturally significant and while we haven't really put any emphasis on it, that doesn't mean we couldn't. If we preserve it, and build the city up around it, it could be a very cool place in the future. Nobody has a building like this. Yes, it's expensive to keep up and it is never going to turn a profit, but so are the Myriad Gardens. I think Stage Center is worthy of inclusion in MAPS 4. The city can take possession of it and turn it into a museum. Let's build around it and for once, keep a controversial piece of art in Oklahoma City.

Rainey Williams' initial statements led me to believe that we were going to see a very significant skyline addition, with great public interaction, that the city could be proud of. Based on that I was conflicted, but eventually okay with the loss of Stage Center. But now we see his design, and quite frankly, it sucks horse balls. That's it. This design is an utter piece of crap. There are a lot of people who for whatever reason feel compelled to stand up for the rights of Rainey Williams, "oh won't someone think of the poor millionaires". That poor millionaire made a backroom deal to acquire a historic property and now we find out he did so with false promises. They wouldn't have sold him the property if they knew what he was really planning to build.

The public has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into cleaning up this part of the city and making it one of the prime locations in the state. Rainey Williams, as with all developers downtown who are benefitting immensely from this public investment, has a duty to the city to not build to the minimum standards.

Where we really need to focus our energy is on OG&E. Political pressure can be exerted on them to select another location. That's far more likely to get a good result than to fight RW over a demolition permit.

[dankrutka]

Where we really need to focus our energy is on OG&E. Political pressure can be exerted on them to select another location. That's far more likely to get a good result than to fight RW over a demolition permit.

Bingo. OG&E doesn't want bad publicity over all this. Where there's a will there's a way, but is there a will?

[Just the facts]

If you want to use the Skirvin as an example you would have to include that the Skirvin wouldn't be able to rent any rooms out after the rehab.

Huh? I don't get this statement, as they very surely do.

Skirvin: rehabbed + renting rooms = success

Stage Center: rehabbed + no one wanting to use it = ???

All of the art organizations in the city have already been asked and all of them said they didn't want to use it for themselves, so even if they fixed it up - who would us it? It would be like fixing up the Skirvin and then not renting rooms in it.

[Rover]

Don't take this too seriously because I'll probably never get the chance to take a look at the issues it has, but the most exculpable distinction would be that it isn't too far gone yet, but in the future may be.

So, a developer would have to wait until it was totally a hazard? Something that might take years. Until then the only option would be rehabbing. Seems like that is what is happening just north of tHem. Maybe Preftakes buys it and adds it to his portfolio there. So much for the most valuable spot in town.

[OkieHornet]

i understand the sentiment of some who want to keep stage center from being demolished. but then what? who's stepping up to do something with it? to my knowledge all i've seen and heard is people who are vocal about not wanting it demolished, but no one with money and a plan to occupy it. am i missing something?

[kevinpate]

i understand the sentiment of some who want to keep stage center from being demolished. but then what? ... am i missing something?

A small number (at least here) would like to see it saved and rehabbed. Many here want the demo permit denied, but their actual interest in saving it is near nil. Stopping demo at this time is merely a means to another end. It is hoped a denial now would somehow require the property owner to come up with a bigger, grander development scheme that would make folks all ohhh, ahhhh, special as it meets their requirements of tall, shiny, [insert pet fav here], etc. If such a development were to be proposed, then the SC would suddenly be as it already is, beyond saving by anyone with the means and desire to save it.

I used to be in the by gum it oughta be saved and reopened camp. I lack the resources. I lack the drive to recruit the resources. Someone else owns it and unlike the foundation that used to own it, the new owner doesn't want to plow 100g or so a year into letting it simply sit. Is his development the shiniest, tallest, ohhh, ahhh, specialiest one in the world? Nope. then again, nada in the codes applicable to the property require that.

Bottom line Some folks are very free with other folks time and money and want to impose personal standards that the city doesn't require. I don't know the current owner. Can't recall ever even knowing the name before the purchase a while back. But if he isn't doing anything illegal, and he meets code, given the disrepair of the existing structure, it isn't a high bar to call most anything a better use of the property than a decaying structure (one which could possibly be recreated from scratch for less than the existing one could be reborn.)

[SoonerDave]

[QUOTE=Spartan;731175]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.

[SoonerDave]

A small number (at least here) would like to see it saved and rehabbed. Many here want the demo permit denied, but their actual interest in saving it is near nil. Stopping demo at this time is merely a means to another end. It is hoped a denial now would somehow require the property owner to come up with a bigger, grander development scheme that would make folks all ohhh, ahhhh, special as it meets their requirements of tall, shiny, [insert pet fav here], etc. If such a development were to be proposed, then the SC would suddenly be as it already is, beyond saving by anyone with the means and desire to save it.

I used to be in the by gum it oughta be saved and reopened camp. I lack the resources. I lack the drive to recruit the resources. Someone else owns it and unlike the foundation that used to own it, the new owner doesn't want to plow 100g or so a year into letting it simply sit. Is his development the shiniest, tallest, ohhh, ahhh, specialiest one in the world? Nope. then again, nada in the codes applicable to the property require that.

Bottom line Some folks are very free with other folks time and money and want to impose personal standards that the city doesn't require. I don't know the current owner. Can't recall ever even knowing the name before the purchase a while back. But if he isn't doing anything illegal, and he meets code, given the disrepair of the existing structure, it isn't a high bar to call most anything a better use of the property than a decaying structure (one which could possibly be recreated from scratch for less than the existing one could be reborn.)

Marvelously stated, Kevin. I'd give you a "like" if we could on this thread.

[zookeeper]

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.