Stage Center

[Patrick]

Patrick, BUT that is the LEGAL way of doing a ballot. Separate propositions. The all-or-nothing (logrolling) format is illegal. The City's own councilor stated that was probably the case with the first MAPS ballot, but no one challenged it.

The Mayor's office indicated that this time around they were going to abide by the law and the State Supreme Court rulings about logrolling with MAPS 3, but the Mayor stated that he & the Council went with the all-or-nothing format because it was what the voters were "used to".

If it was unpopular at first (I don't recall which ones were/weren't) it certainly was by the time we voted for the 6 month "extension" to "finish MAPS right". Without that vote passing, there was consideration of scrapping the Arena project completely after we weren't selected for the NHL expansion team. Along with the significant amounts that the other MAPS projects were over budget.

The city got around this with MAPS 3 by not listing the separate projects on the ballot and making the wording vague.

[Larry OKC]

Patrick: Someone who is a practicing attorney on the site mentioned by doing that it runs into another requirement of "specificity". Using an overly, broadly term of "capital improvement" (they went on for several sentences "defining" it). What was excluded? Not much.

Just as with MAPS 1, they will continue to utilize illegal ballots until someone has the means to challenge them in court. Oh, and they would have to lose. An "intent" aspect was challenged (where the Council changed their stated intent and used MAPS for Kids Use Tax money to help fund the Bass Pro deal, the court ruled they could change their intent at any time. Which is another problem with MAPS 3, none of the projects are mentioned in a legally binding way. We only have the council's "intent" and their word for it.

[bombermwc]

I thought that was why we had an oversight board, so things went where they were supposed to.

[Larry OKC]

In theory, but the Oversight Board doesn't have the final say, the Council does (see the OGE substation mess). However we have probably derailed this thread enough and should get back to topic (but happy to discuss it elsewhere).

[Maynard]

In theory, but the Oversight Board doesn't have the final say, the Council does (see the OGE substation mess). However we have probably derailed this thread enough and should get back to topic (but happy to discuss it elsewhere).

Visual acuity is important!

[Rover]

In reality, Maps 3 won't be used for Stage Center. Stage Center has no political value and no ground-swell of popular support. And, the land is probably worth more cleared than it is with it standing.

[Pete]

If it's decided that Stage Center isn't worth saving, it would be a good idea to look at the entire block for redevelopment.

Just south of SC is the Arts Council but besides some small offices, that property is really only used a couple of weeks out of the year. And that usage could be moved to the new Devon park or one of the great many new areas in the Myriad Gardens.

And then south of that is the recently obtained property presently used by Myriad Gardens staff.

[mcca7596]

So the city now owns the building that La Luna is in?

[Pete]

^ Yes.

Acquired it in September of last year.

[Just the facts]

They need to open that block of California Ave again.

[dmoor82]

They need to open that block of California Ave again.

Why,to prevent another superblock type development?Don't you know OKC needs more superblocks!Just kiddding,I agree with you.

[jonno]

What was/is the purpose of the six story tower in the middle of the Arts Council's land? It doesn't look like it would be good for anything. There's got to be a story there and I'd like to know what it is.

[Steve]

Yes, there is. You can read the rest of the story here: http://www.okchistory.com/index.php?...ents&Itemid=77

[jonno]

So did the fire station have a tower or was the whole building that tall? It would have looked cool with a glass dome on top. Thanks for the info Steve.

[ljbab728]

So did the fire station have a tower or was the whole building that tall? It would have looked cool with a glass dome on top. Thanks for the info Steve.

You would probably have to ask some of our resident fire department posters to know for sure but I know that it was a regular fire station with a tower. I'm guessing it was used to drain hoses.

[Larry OKC]

The link mentioned that the glass dome was so a fireman could look out over the city for fires. Kewl. Are there any pics of the building with the glass dome? Didn't see any at the link....

[Jim Kyle]

The fire station that had the glass dome on it was over on Broadway, not on Walker. When McAlpine ordered the station rebuilt, it moved to the Walker'Hudson location. The tower was used for training; after urban renewal did away with the station, the training site moved out to the OSU Tech campus on Portland where it remains today.

[Larry OKC]

Steve reports the report is back in and things don't look good for Stage Center...
http://newsok.com/analysis-shows-ten..._lead_business

[Urbanized]

That was a fire training tower, so they could train firefighters to work multi-story fires, stairwells, etc. I think it was used for that as late as the seventies, and like Jim mentioned, replaced by the one at OSU-OKC. If you look closely at the one by McAlpine, it's not an ancient building. Probably fifties vintage, concrete.

[SkyWestOKC]

I think it's time to move on.

It's a shame to lose a piece of architecture that is unique to the world. I was downtown in the Myriad Gardens today, sat on a bench for a while and gazed around at the city around me. With that piece of property becoming more and more valuable with the Devon Tower, Myriad Gardens revamp, Convention Center nearby, the new school, it is taking up space that could be a positive development.

It takes up a lot of space, and hasn't ever reached the potential it had. It doesn't tie in very well to the so-called urban fabric with it being set back so far from every street. It's kind of in the way. Now, if it were in use and active, people using it, I'd be saying 100% opposite of what I'm saying now.

Here are the facts:

1) It's unused, and hasn't had a ton of use over its life
2) It's in a severe state of disrepair and would cost serious money to bring it back to code
3) Even with those repairs, there's no guarantee that fact 1 could change
4) The properties around it are beginning to develop
5) It is in the middle of downtown and the land it is sitting on has more potential for use than the current building does or would, even with the repairs done.

All of that leading up to this. Let's not tear it down to tear it down. If someone has plans to re-use that site and will go forward with it, then let it come down. Let's not just demolish it for the sake of demolishing it and leave the lot empty. Let the scar not sit there. If it has to come down, let something better go up in its place relatively quickly.

[OKCisOK4me]

Good to hear no one is moving into it.

[Steve]

SkyWest, your comment is an indication of why this won't be the same as the SandRidge Commons debate. On SandRidge Commons, right or wrong, SandRidge did not make a compelling case to urbanists that there was a higher and better use for the property on which they were wanting to clear older buildings. So there was a natural alliance between the urbanists and preservation community (the architectural community was an ally on their side, but certainly not in any strong, organized sense). On this discussion the leading advocate will be the architectural community; I do not sense a strong voice on this matter by the preservationists (who are still battle scarred and worn out from SandRidge), and it's entirely possible the urbanists will see a higher and better use and sit this one out.

[progressiveboy]

As I mentioned on this thread earlier, the "aesthetics" of Stage Center are just not compatible with that area. The design of this structure is unique and certainly is not cookie cutter but the materials and color of the building have much to be desired. It is not easy on the eyes and it is very brutalistic looking. The colors are hideous and the concrete is very stained. The building appearance is very worn and dated, not to mention the liability and structural defects of the building. I have to agree with others, it is going to be "the best and highest possible use" of this land. I just do not see the Stage Center as being a viable option to rehabilitate due to the cost prohibitive nature. I could see a new mid or high rise convention hotel in it's place or perhaps another HQ's high rise being developed!

[kevinpate]

It pains me to see it happen, but if SC were a person, it wouldn't be unfair to liken SC's situation to resting in the hospice wing long enough that nearly everyone who intends to has stopped by to pay respects, and it's now down to 1-2 close family members, and an angel sitting in the corner, waiting ... just waiting.

[Just the facts]

SkyWest, your comment is an indication of why this won't be the same as the SandRidge Commons debate. On SandRidge Commons, right or wrong, SandRidge did not make a compelling case to urbanists that there was a higher and better use for the property on which they were wanting to clear older buildings. So there was a natural alliance between the urbanists and preservation community (the architectural community was an ally on their side, but certainly not in any strong, organized sense). On this discussion the leading advocate will be the architectural community; I do not sense a strong voice on this matter by the preservationists (who are still battle scarred and worn out from SandRidge), and it's entirely possible the urbanists will see a higher and better use and sit this one out.

As a self-proclaimed urbanist, I have no problem seeking the active removal of suburban structures downtown. I do agree with SkyWest though, just let it sit there and rot (so long as it doesn't become unsafe or a homeless hangout) until something better comes along. Even a couple of concrete boxes are better than a vacant lot. I would like to see the City re-open California as soon as possible. If nothing else it will add 30 to 40 on-street parking spaces near MBG.