OG&E Tower

[Spartan]

12-18 months is not a unreasonable timetable to go from schematic design to the completion of construction documents, especially considering the scale of the project. Especially if the firm doing the design work does not specialize in high-rise construction.

Which is the case

[CuatrodeMayo]

Vernacular architecture has a universal appeal.

So does comfort food.

Should every restaurant serve fried chicken, mashed potatoes, and corn on the cob?

[Pete]

12-18 months is not a unreasonable timetable to go from schematic design to the completion of construction documents, especially considering the scale of the project. Especially if the firm doing the design work does not specialize in high-rise construction.

EDIT: That is one reason obtaining the demolition permit now instead of just before construction makes sense. There is a significant outlay of money in design work ($5M-$10M) just to get the point of moving dirt. It would be unwise to spend that kind of money only to be denied when you a ready to start construction.

That part about paying for the design work before demolition makes very good sense. Thanks for pointing that out.



Also, I've heard that ADG will not be the architects; they were just hired to do a conceptual plan. I'm sure they'll hire someone with more expertise with this scale of project.


One other point: OG&E has already done extensive programming (what they need) so that should aid the initial process.

[Pete]

Personally, I don't mind who is going to be the tenant. It's not OG&E's fault if we trade an icon for a mediocre development (note: at press time we still have little idea what kind of development this will be) while a large chunk of the core remains vacant or undeveloped. That'll just the result of community apathy mixing with indifferent wealth.

I don't care that it's OG&E either but it's absolutely their desire to be located on this property that is behind the demolition and they will have everything to say about the quality of the development.

Rainey Williams is effectively doing a build-to-suit for them, precisely so people will only see them as a tenant, not have blood on their hands, etc.

[Paseofreak]

There is a significant outlay of money in design work ($5M-$10M) just to get the point of moving dirt.

Rainey said in the proceedings $2-4MM for final design. I'm used to 6-8% for design fees. They must be a ways into it.

[CuatrodeMayo]

This comes as absolutely no surprise to me.

Situations like this are painful reminders that our community places little value on architecture and the built environment. As a practitioner of architecture and fan of avant garde design, I take this as a personal affront to my profession. Quite frankly it makes me want to practice in a different city that is more appreciative of contemporary architecture.

As much as I admire Stage Center, I have made my peace with its demolition. In our demo-happy city, this is the inevitable end for less-than-perfect buildings that find themselves in the way of "progress" (re: Film Exchange Building). Our shared history as a city reflects our ignorance of the importance of the built environment and the value of our architectural heritage. In the present day there is a general consensus that the urban renewal demolition programs of the 60's and 70's were at least, misguided and at worst, crimes against architecture. However, in the face of such clear and recent history, we unhesitatingly plunge forward in our efforts to repeat it. We gleefully erase every trace of our built heritage for the sake of something new and shiny. Much like written history, buildings are tangible objects that represent the story of a community over time. I fear that without the guiding presence of the past, right or wrong, we will struggle to frame our future.

[Dubya61]

This comes as absolutely no surprise to me.

Situations like this are painful reminders that our community places little value on architecture and the built environment. As a practitioner of architecture and fan of avant garde design, I take this as a personal affront to my profession. Quite frankly it makes me want to practice in a different city that is more appreciative of contemporary architecture.

As much as I admire Stage Center, I have made my peace with its demolition. In our demo-happy city, this is the inevitable end for less-than-perfect buildings that find themselves in the way of "progress" (re: Film Exchange Building). Our shared history as a city reflects our ignorance of the importance of the built environment and the value of our architectural heritage. In the present day there is a general consensus that the urban renewal demolition programs of the 60's and 70's were at least, misguided and at worst, crimes against architecture. However, in the face of such clear and recent history, we unhesitatingly plunge forward in our efforts to repeat it. We gleefully erase every trace of our built heritage for the sake of something new and shiny. Much like written history, buildings are tangible objects that represent the story of a community over time. I fear that without the guiding presence of the past, right or wrong, we will struggle to frame our future.

Like. I see the SC as something designed in the motif of the Pei Plan. Am I wrong on that? It's interesting that something that we might have kept at least as a reminder of our flawed history is not being destroyed in the same pattern as our flawed history.

[Pete]

This comes as absolutely no surprise to me.

Situations like this are painful reminders that our community places little value on architecture and the built environment. As a practitioner of architecture and fan of avant garde design, I take this as a personal affront to my profession. Quite frankly it makes me want to practice in a different city that is more appreciative of contemporary architecture.

As much as I admire Stage Center, I have made my peace with its demolition. In our demo-happy city, this is the inevitable end for less-than-perfect buildings that find themselves in the way of "progress" (re: Film Exchange Building). Our shared history as a city reflects our ignorance of the importance of the built environment and the value of our architectural heritage. In the present day there is a general consensus that the urban renewal demolition programs of the 60's and 70's were at least, misguided and at worst, crimes against architecture. However, in the face of such clear and recent history, we unhesitatingly plunge forward in our efforts to repeat it. We gleefully erase every trace of our built heritage for the sake of something new and shiny. Much like written history, buildings are tangible objects that represent the story of a community over time. I fear that without the guiding presence of the past, right or wrong, we will struggle to frame our future.

I can completely understand why you feel this way.

But every single American city laid waste to blocks and blocks of urban fabric in the 50's, 60's and 70's and most of them really struggled afterwards. It's just that most of us don't know or care nearly as much about what happened pretty much everywhere else.

I know we all like to invoke the Pei Plan every time a building is demolished but I really don't think the city's past has anything to do with this, nor do I think OKC is unique in the way it handles these situations -- at least among somewhat similar U.S. cities.

There simply wasn't a good option here and in fact, if OKC wasn't doing so well downtown, nobody would have cared if Stage Center rotted another decade or two.


This building has been a failure almost since opening and it never found a rich and powerful white knight to save it. That's partly due to the fact it is polarizing to begin with; virtually everybody wanted the Skirvin saved, after all. But it's also because it was a mess and I'm not sure that there is anything that unique about OKC that conspired against it.


All this said with tremendous respect for you, Andrew, and your profession. And a fair amount of affection for the soon-to-be-demolished Stage Center.

[HangryHippo]

This comes as absolutely no surprise to me.

Situations like this are painful reminders that our community places little value on architecture and the built environment. As a practitioner of architecture and fan of avant garde design, I take this as a personal affront to my profession. Quite frankly it makes me want to practice in a different city that is more appreciative of contemporary architecture.

As much as I admire Stage Center, I have made my peace with its demolition. In our demo-happy city, this is the inevitable end for less-than-perfect buildings that find themselves in the way of "progress" (re: Film Exchange Building). Our shared history as a city reflects our ignorance of the importance of the built environment and the value of our architectural heritage. In the present day there is a general consensus that the urban renewal demolition programs of the 60's and 70's were at least, misguided and at worst, crimes against architecture. However, in the face of such clear and recent history, we unhesitatingly plunge forward in our efforts to repeat it. We gleefully erase every trace of our built heritage for the sake of something new and shiny. Much like written history, buildings are tangible objects that represent the story of a community over time. I fear that without the guiding presence of the past, right or wrong, we will struggle to frame our future.

Meh, the buildings we destroyed in the 60s and 70s were beautiful works. This thing was shipping containers and elevated sidewalks.

[borchard]

I'm not trying to pile on but I'm actually OK with it being demolished. Like a prior poster said, it was a failure from the get-go. I actually went to an Opening Night performance there many years ago, and it was terrible. It reminded me of something that would have been designed/built by the Soviet Union in the 60's.
And I freely admit that I could be completely wrong, but is there ANYTHING actually historic about the Film Exchange building? From what I've read it was A film exchange, not THE film exchange, It was even the first one. So, why again should it NOT be torn down? Not just for the sake of tearing something down, but to make room for a wonderful space that will be a benefit to all of Oklahoma City?

[mkjeeves]

Like. I see the SC as something designed in the motif of the Pei Plan. Am I wrong on that? It's interesting that something that we might have kept at least as a reminder of our flawed history is not being destroyed in the same pattern as our flawed history.

Hmm. That's possible but I see the failure of Stage Center partly due to the collapse of Downtown during that time to the more present rebirth, which was a long stretch of its lifetime. It was one of the few reasons to go downtown at all, especially in the evening, with it and the civic center pre-maps being about the only destinations. Perhaps it was both, a contributor and a casualty.

It may have thrived had it been built near a wealthy burb but still would have had to weather the '80s.

[Spartan]

This comes as absolutely no surprise to me.

Situations like this are painful reminders that our community places little value on architecture and the built environment. As a practitioner of architecture and fan of avant garde design, I take this as a personal affront to my profession. Quite frankly it makes me want to practice in a different city that is more appreciative of contemporary architecture.

As much as I admire Stage Center, I have made my peace with its demolition. In our demo-happy city, this is the inevitable end for less-than-perfect buildings that find themselves in the way of "progress" (re: Film Exchange Building). Our shared history as a city reflects our ignorance of the importance of the built environment and the value of our architectural heritage. In the present day there is a general consensus that the urban renewal demolition programs of the 60's and 70's were at least, misguided and at worst, crimes against architecture. However, in the face of such clear and recent history, we unhesitatingly plunge forward in our efforts to repeat it. We gleefully erase every trace of our built heritage for the sake of something new and shiny. Much like written history, buildings are tangible objects that represent the story of a community over time. I fear that without the guiding presence of the past, right or wrong, we will struggle to frame our future.

Come to Cleveland or anywhere in the Northeast. You'll be appreciated. People here fought to save Edward Durell Stone which is garbage compared to Stage Center. And no oilies to speak of.

[Urbanized]

Step off, Slappy. We need him.

[LuccaBrasi]

Architecture is art, and the beauty of it is often in the eye of the beholder, or society which interacts with it. It is an age old argument. If 85% of the population does not like the "architecture" of a certain building, than who is to say it's good architecture? A group of architects with an admiration of modern design? If the design does not move people and enhance the vernacular and social fabric of the "place" in which it is located, then is it truly great architecture or just a piece of art that some will admire, and some won't. The SC won an AIA Gold Medal because a group of architects thought it deserved it at the time. The Central OK AIA and Tulsa AIA rallied signatures to keep the SC, which is great. But, that does not mean ALL architects liked the SC and wanted to see it remain. I know several who were in favor of seeing it go for all the reasons mentioned numerous times already, but you tend not to hear from that side. Also, one can appreciate and like modern architecture, yet not care for the design of the SC.
Portland, Oregon is facing a similar battle on a Michael Graves building, Google it. The general public absolutely hate it and want it razed, while others say it's an iconic historical architectural landmark. Architecture and art will always have these types of arguments from time to time. There is no right or wrong answer, just opinion and preference.

[soonerguru]

This comes as absolutely no surprise to me.

Situations like this are painful reminders that our community places little value on architecture and the built environment. As a practitioner of architecture and fan of avant garde design, I take this as a personal affront to my profession. Quite frankly it makes me want to practice in a different city that is more appreciative of contemporary architecture.

As much as I admire Stage Center, I have made my peace with its demolition. In our demo-happy city, this is the inevitable end for less-than-perfect buildings that find themselves in the way of "progress" (re: Film Exchange Building). Our shared history as a city reflects our ignorance of the importance of the built environment and the value of our architectural heritage. In the present day there is a general consensus that the urban renewal demolition programs of the 60's and 70's were at least, misguided and at worst, crimes against architecture. However, in the face of such clear and recent history, we unhesitatingly plunge forward in our efforts to repeat it. We gleefully erase every trace of our built heritage for the sake of something new and shiny. Much like written history, buildings are tangible objects that represent the story of a community over time. I fear that without the guiding presence of the past, right or wrong, we will struggle to frame our future.

Great post. Any and every landmark in this city is endangered. History has repeated itself in this regard again and again.

Similarly, I'm absolutely bummed that ODOT is selling the right of way that could be used for rail transit to the highest bidder. This asset will never come back.

[Rover]

P

This comes as absolutely no surprise to me.

Situations like this are painful reminders that our community places little value on architecture and the built environment. As a practitioner of architecture and fan of avant garde design, I take this as a personal affront to my profession. Quite frankly it makes me want to practice in a different city that is more appreciative of contemporary architecture.
.

Hmmm. Rand Elliott seems to find a market here for contemporary.

[ljbab728]

I saw an interview with Rainey on the news tonight and he was still talking about building a "world class" building. He obviously is still planning to do something that we haven't seen yet.

http://kfor.com/2014/01/16/committee...que-buildings/

[Mississippi Blues]

I saw an interview with Rainey on the news tonight and he was still talking about building a "world class" building. He obviously is still planning to do something that we haven't seen yet.

He needs to quit using that term unless what he's planning truly is world class & the conceptual drawings we see now are just a weak placeholder to blow us away when the final plans are released.

[dankrutka]

I saw an interview with Rainey on the news tonight and he was still talking about building a "world class" building. He obviously is still planning to do something that we haven't seen yet.

Or he reads this board and is trolling everyone on this thread.

[Snowman]

He needs to quit using that term unless what he's planning truly is world class & the conceptual drawings we see now are just a weak placeholder to blow us away when the final plans are released.

a bland placeholder, maybe he was using this service; PlaceholderURL.com | LoadingReadyRun Video Gallery | The Escapist

[BoulderSooner]

For better or worse, to be honest I don't see "for profit" public energy (OG&E, ONG, etc.) to survive the next 10-15 years. By necessity.
Their goals clash with worldwide sustainability .....go ahead and bookmark this post.

One of the funniest things I have ever read

[jccouger]

Lol, if you guys are going to fall for the whole "world class" propaganda again then I hope you are ready to stop shaming yourselves.

[betts]

He needs to quit using that term unless what he's planning truly is world class & the conceptual drawings we see now are just a weak placeholder to blow us away when the final plans are released.

Is he using a world class architect? Is he spending world class money? I think we have our answer. He's razing paradise to put up a parking lot, to paraphrase Joni Mitchell.

[Pete]

"World class" is a term that is thrown around too easily.

Devon Energy Center -- at $750 million -- is a world class facility. The budget for this project is $100 million.

[Urbanized]

Hmmm. Rand Elliott seems to find a market here for contemporary.

Mostly, Rand found a patron in Aubrey McClendon. And in the case of the river (perhaps his most public work these days), set a modern standard that was so strong with initial structures that it would have been jarring and confusing to deviate from that appearance on subsequent structures, even those not paid for by CHK. So the Boathouse Foundation trusted him to oversee the vision for the entire district.

If Aubrey had been in love with Stage Center (and didn't mind preserving a building on Larry Nichols' front porch), SC would be a showpiece and would have found a use. If 20 years ago you would have suggested the river would have the venues, the users and the purpose it now has, you would have been laughed out of town. It took the VISION of Mike Knopp, and the SUPPORT of Aubrey McClendon (and others, eventually). Eventually the public and the users followed.

By the way, Rand has experienced the same frustrations in this market as CuatrodeMayo expresses above. He has been disheartened through the years by OKC's general lack of concern for architecture. I know this because I've discussed it with him over lunch and over beers. OKC can feel like a lonely outpost for architects, and especially did when he first hung his shingle.

He could have gone to NYC, or Chicago, or London, or anywhere, but chose to stay home and try to change the culture. For years he subsisted on projects that weren't nearly as sexy as the things his firm works on today. And by sheer will he forced his way onto the scene. And by the way has plenty of other great projects outside of the Aubrey-connected ones.

Today he is helping to slowly change the attitudes we have here about buildings. We need more people like him (and there are a number on the scene now). Hopefully they can eventually help turn the tide, but it is surely discouraging to spend an entire career in a place where you feel like for the most part you're just beating your head against the proverbial wall.

I can't begrudge a guy for venting about that.