Stage Center

[Just the facts]

Again, exactly. If stage center were a sculpture I would be fine with it being there. But it isn't. It's a building. An empty, abandoned building which a few groups have made a go of making work and failed over the years. As such it is a failure in it's intended purpose which is being a building.

Even if was a sculpture - sculptures are moved all the time. So it won an award. Sell the land and rebuild it somewhere else using the original plans.

[securityinfo]

Not to pick nits, but it was Dolese that paid for the "beautification" by adding the trees (although I'm certain Draper probably hated it too)...

http://www.okctalk.com/showthread.ph...t=stage+center

[G.Walker]

Would be a great location for a new skyscraper!

[OKCisOK4me]

Would be a great location for a new skyscraper!

Much agreed, be it commercial or residential.

[Just the facts]

Would be a great location for a new skyscraper!

If this site isn't used for a residential mid-rise or high-rise it should be a crime.

[Spartan]

What site wouldn't be a great site for a new skyscraper? Just think of the amount of prime vacant land downtown...

I think 4th and Broadway is a great site for a skyscraper, a cow pasture today. Or Sheridan/Robinson. Or some of these surface parking lots in Bricktown, or hell, ALL over downtown today. Why does a site with an architectural landmark have to be a great site for a skyscraper instead? That makes about as much sense as...well nothing.

[ljbab728]

And if it can be repurposed in it's current configuration that would be the ideal situation. Tearing it down is not the ideal situation. We need to give it every opportunity to succeed before condemnation.

[Just the facts]

What site wouldn't be a great site for a new skyscraper? Just think of the amount of prime vacant land downtown...

I think 4th and Broadway is a great site for a skyscraper, a cow pasture today. Or Sheridan/Robinson. Or some of these surface parking lots in Bricktown, or hell, ALL over downtown today. Why does a site with an architectural landmark have to be a great site for a skyscraper instead? That makes about as much sense as...well nothing.

Because it is right next to what could be one of the greatest urban parks in the US. It is the same reason the new convention center needs to go somewhere else and the COX site needs to be redeveloped.

http://www.pps.org/articles/uscanadasquares/

[SoonerDave]

And if it can be repurposed in it's current configuration that would be the ideal situation. Tearing it down is not the ideal situation. We need to give it every opportunity to succeed before condemnation.

Isn't 40 years enough of an opportunity?

[SoonerDave]

What site wouldn't be a great site for a new skyscraper? Just think of the amount of prime vacant land downtown...

I think 4th and Broadway is a great site for a skyscraper, a cow pasture today. Or Sheridan/Robinson. Or some of these surface parking lots in Bricktown, or hell, ALL over downtown today. Why does a site with an architectural landmark have to be a great site for a skyscraper instead? That makes about as much sense as...well nothing.

Because its a dilapidated, unworkable structure that had become a burden to the community to the tune of one million dollars annually. At some point , Spartan, you have to realize it just because you like it doesn't mean the rest of us must.

[G.Walker]

Because its a dilapidated, unworkable structure that had become a burden to the community to the tune of one million dollars annually. At some point , Spartan, you have to realize it just because you like it doesn't mean the rest of us must.

+1

[Bill Robertson]

Isn't 40 years enough of an opportunity?

You beat me to it. It has had way more than enough opportunity to become something, anything that resembles a functioning entity and it has not.

[betts]

Maybe people haven't thought outside the box enough. Does it have to be a theatre? Some of my favorite buildings are used for things very different from the original intention. I would hate to see Stage Center be replaced by another bland skyscraper just so we can ooh and aah over our skyline, much less some four story office building. Great cities have surprises within them, and I consider Stage Center a visual surprise.

[Just the facts]

Maybe people haven't thought outside the box enough. Does it have to be a theatre? Some of my favorite buildings are used for things very different from the original intention. I would hate to see Stage Center be replaced by another bland skyscraper just so we can ooh and aah over our skyline, much less some four story office building. Great cities have surprises within them, and I consider Stage Center a visual surprise.

One thing we know 100% for sure - Stage Center will never be a theater again. We will see what, if anything, comes out of the RFP process and how much it is going to cost. Then we can decide if the project is worth the cost and how to pay for it. My guess is that nothing of value will come out of the RFP process and the price tag will be so high it will be a show stopper. However, most of the people who want to keep don't care about that anyhow. I get the impression they don't care how much it cost or if it does anything other than sit there.

[OKCisOK4me]

Maybe people haven't thought outside the box enough. Does it have to be a theatre? Some of my favorite buildings are used for things very different from the original intention. I would hate to see Stage Center be replaced by another bland skyscraper just so we can ooh and aah over our skyline, much less some four story office building. Great cities have surprises within them, and I consider Stage Center a visual surprise.

IMO... (<---what I'm starting all my posts with from now on or will make it a signature line) Let's put our heads back in the box. Anyone who has maintained this site allowed it to get to the condition it is in today. Can't necessarily put the sole blame on a day we had 10" of rain. Whoever invested in this during the past 40 years allowed it to get to the condition it is in today. If it were such a gem, it would be in pristine condition and we would not be having this discussion. This site will probably end up like the India Temple building that Sandridge tore down.

[Spartan]

You beat me to it. It has had way more than enough opportunity to become something, anything that resembles a functioning entity and it has not.

It has at certain junctures of its 40 year existence. That's a really incongruent argument to make though, because historic preservation is always a struggle. The only way to consistently put that into principle is if one is opposed to ALL of the buildings that have been saved in the past few years, like the Skirvin, and all of Bricktown. These are extremely profitable today because someone thought outside the box and abandoned the conventional.

The FNC has had 80 years of opportunity, more than double that of the Stage Center. We all know the vast potential the FNC has to be an incredible urban redevelopment project. Or does it also sit on prime land for a new skyscraper?

[Urbanized]

Spartan, you said something semi-positive about Bricktown! ;-)

[Just the facts]

The FNC has had 80 years of opportunity, more than double that of the Stage Center. We all know the vast potential the FNC has to be an incredible urban redevelopment project. Or does it also sit on prime land for a new skyscraper?

The flaw in your arguement is that FNC is being used today and doesn't cost the City $100K a year to keep vagrants out.

like the Skirvin, and all of Bricktown. These are extremely profitable today because someone thought outside the box and abandoned the conventional.

Outside the box, they turned a closed hotel into a open hotel. That is as inside the box as you can get.

[Urbanized]

JTF, the Skirvin is not a perfect analogy, but it's also not unreasonable. It was closed for 20 years. It was a failing business for years before that. In many places it was open to the elements; you could see sunlight through the roof in places while standing inside. It was a transient squat. And if you knew the power brokers who were itching (and privately advocating) to tear it down, you would wonder how it was ever saved.

The decision to renovate was difficult and much-debated, and plenty of people wrote the paper volunteering to personally swing sledgehammers to hasten the demolition. Somewhere along the line the community decided it was important to the history of the city, and that it should not be torn down. Remains to be seen if the same will happen for Stage Center. Since the community connection to SC in no way approaches the one that the Skirvin had even during its darkest times (appreciation for SC tends to be more intellectual while the Skirvin had an emotional hold on many), I imagine it will be a much tougher field to plow.

[Just the facts]

All that is good and well Urbanized but no one is trying to return Stage Center to an operating theater. That was the only point I was making. I am content to wait for the RFPs before we do the RIPs. In fact, I am perfectly happy to let the existing structure sit there for an other 20 years if that is how long it take to get a redevelopment proposal for the site. The eixisting strucutre is better than a vacant lot (but just barely).

[ljbab728]

Isn't 40 years enough of an opportunity?

Not if opportunities are currently being actively pursued. I know you just don't like the appearance of the building but that's not sufficient reason for it's destruction. If nothing comes of the current activities I won't argue with you so much even if I still love the building.

[Spartan]

All that is good and well Urbanized but no one is trying to return Stage Center to an operating theater. That was the only point I was making. I am content to wait for the RFPs before we do the RIPs. In fact, I am perfectly happy to let the existing structure sit there for an other 20 years if that is how long it take to get a redevelopment proposal for the site. The eixisting strucutre is better than a vacant lot (but just barely).

Kerry, I know you are above the use-specific argument. I remember reading many of your own posts detailing your disregard for specific land uses, that your own urbanism doctrine is more form-specific rather. I agree with your urbanism doctrine, in those cases, and also in this case.

Another positive remark regarding Bricktown coming in 3....2.....

[SoonerDave]

Not if opportunities are currently being actively pursued. I know you just don't like the appearance of the building but that's not sufficient reason for it's destruction. If nothing comes of the current activities I won't argue with you so ven if I still love the building.

I think I've made my position on that building quite clear. There comes a time when we have to recognize that some things are no longer worth saving, and that time has clearly been reached for this facility. The current RFP effort is the very essence of putting lipstick on a pig

[betts]

This thread is another example of where the words, "in my opinion" might be useful as well. In my opinion, Stage Center is a unique, iconic building that adds a lot of individuality to our city. It's another building that makes me smile when I come upon it on walks or when driving. If I were a visitor, I think I would see it as a very interesting counterpoint to a pretty bland downtown. It borders a park, which makes its whimsy appropo. It will be adjacent to a grade school, and to me, it mimics playground equipment. I would love to see it used, but at this point in time, it's a very interesting sculpture and I would hate to see it replaced with another bland structure. That's my opinion.

[Just the facts]

This thread is another example of where the words, "in my opinion" might be useful as well. In my opinion, Stage Center is a unique, iconic building that adds a lot of individuality to our city. It's another building that makes me smile when I come upon it on walks or when driving. If I were a visitor, I think I would see it as a very interesting counterpoint to a pretty bland downtown. It borders a park, which makes its whimsy appropo. It will be adjacent to a grade school, and to me, it mimics playground equipment. I would love to see it used, but at this point in time, it's a very interesting sculpture and I would hate to see it replaced with another bland structure. That's my opinion.

What if it was moved/rebuilt to another location?