Stage Center

[OKCisOK4me]

How much would it cost to destroy the SC?

[Urbanized]

It cost $53 million to renovate the Skirvin, and $40 million to build the much-larger Renaissance from scratch. In the end, which is more important to the identity of OKC? Was it worth it to renovate the Skirvin, or should we have just demolished it and built a new hotel? Out with the old, in with the new, right? And don't tell me nobody wanted to tear down the Skirvin; many did, and to say otherwise is revisionist history.

[Pete]

How much would it cost to destroy the SC?

Not that I'm advocating this but unless they would be attempting to save part of the structure, the whole thing could be scraped for about $200K.

Demolition is generally pretty cheap.

[Just the facts]

Stage Center /= Skirvin. The only claim to fame for Stage Center is it won award 40 years ago. It has in no way had an impact on the history, growth, or business of Oklahoma City. It is not part of a bigger picture like the Skirvin is/was. Stage Center is an entity unto it self.

Sell the land Stage Center sits on and you can do all those things Sooner Dave mentioned.

[Pete]

If the Stage Center building wasn't used for the museum, there is absolutely no reason for it to be located on such a prime piece of property.

It would be better situated near the Civic Center or further west; still part of the Arts District but not using an expensive and key property right on the park and the CBD border.

[Urbanized]

I never said it was the equal of the Skirvin. However, it is unique and more important to the architectural history of this town than all but a very small handful of buildings. That counts for something, or it should. Whether that importance justifies going to extreme means to preserve the building is for others (and the community) to decide.

[SoonerDave]

It cost $53 million to renovate the Skirvin, and $40 million to build the much-larger Renaissance from scratch. In the end, which is more important to the identity of OKC? Was it worth it to renovate the Skirvin, or should we have just demolished it and built a new hotel? Out with the old, in with the new, right? And don't tell me nobody wanted to tear down the Skirvin; many did, and to say otherwise is revisionist history.

To compare the Stage Center to the Skirvin is like comparing a Yugo to a BMW. The Skirvin was, in its heyday, a vibrant, integral part of Oklahoma City in general and downtown in particular. Talk to nearly anyone of the immediately previous generation and they'll tell why and how the Skirvin became woven into OKC's history. Ask them about the "Stage Center," and then when you clarify that its the old "Mummers," the majority will most certainly respond with, "ugh." It has no relevance to Oklahoma City's history except to serve as a monument to form before function and a poster child for white elephants, lost causes, and the absurd waste of resources.

Are there some who wanted to tear down the Skirvin? I'm sure there were. But to say that number or proportion matched that who presently advocate razing the Stage Center, or to even remotely imply that the Stage Center has had a social or historical impact on Oklahoma City on par with that of the Skirvin, is a great deal worse than revisionist history - its delusional.

Moreover, what happens if someone comes along and does plunk a few million to put some lipstick on that pig, only to find the next flood, the next structural failing, the next round of damage, the next unexpected problem, purges the then-current tenants out for weeks, months...just like the last, what, two or three tenants have endured (to say nothing of the property lost) - and guess what - we're right back where we are, with one group begging to preserve it, yet simultaneously expecting someone else to pick up the costs. At some point, that merry-go-round has to end.

I know this irritates the folks who want to preserve it, and I don't intend to offend, but at some point some reality has to be brought to bear on this issue.

[Pete]

The simple truth is that unless someone can come up with $30+ million in a hurry, this structure won't be saved.

It would be a pity in many ways but the place is currently a disaster and beyond that, it's never worked right and seems to have some major construction/engineering flaws that cause it to be extremely expensive to maintain.

Unless there is a large financial commitment to correct these problems, it really doesn't make any sense to save it. Something major needs to happen; another band-aid is just kicking the can down the street and leaves the city with an eyesore and big hole in the middle of an emerging downtown.

[OKCisOK4me]

Yes, this is my opinion, I'm well aware of that, but... It's already an eyesore.

[Urbanized]

SoonerDave, I'm pretty sure you DID intend to offend. You called just more or less called me delusional, and I'm not even advocating its preservation, much less begging for it. I'm just pointing out that somewhere along the line the community has to make value judgments on buildings like these. Sometimes history and/or aesthetics win out; sometimes practicality does. In the case of the Skirvin, it was deemed that history trumped practicality. Elsewhere in OKC's history, practicality (and even preemptive "practicality") has won nearly every time, and we've been left with a pockmarked landscape straight out of Kunstler's The Geography of Nowhere. It will be interesting to see where OKC ends up on this one. In this particular case I have no strong personal attachment to that building, but at the same time understand why some want it saved.

But I will say one thing - and this thread and others prove it - for every vocal preservation advocate tilting at windmills, showing up at the 11th hour, there is usually at least one DEMOLITION advocate also showing up at the 11th hour, foaming at the mouth to tear something down. This happens regardless of the structure. I promise there were just as many people who cheered the wrecking ball swinging on the Criterion Theater or the Baum Building as hated it. People packed lunches to watch the implosions of the Biltmore, Belle Isle Power Plant and the demo of the Graffiti Bridge. I would argue that practicality was the right choice on at least one if not two of them, and maybe all three. The Criterion or the Baum? Stupid removals when looked at through the lens of history.

When the Skirvin was abandoned, many, many people - some of them important - pronounced it an eyesore and called for its demolition. None of those people would admit to that position today. Now people suddenly love the Braniff as they see it coming back to life, yet just a couple of years ago I had more than a few conversations with intelligent people who were aching to see that building reduced to rubble. Hindsight, as usual, is 20/20.

[UnFrSaKn]

Buildings are only what people choose to make of them. Money is fickle. Money is why the Baum Building wasn't moved instead of torn down. They were concerned with costs. The right now instead of the forty years, eighty years from now.

I just noticed something I should have seen long ago. Somehow I walked passed it numerous times. There's actually a plaque put up for the Baptist White Temple on E.K. Gaylord. Why Western Union had to demolish this and build right at this spot and not somewhere else is beyond me. I'm sure it was some other fickle reason.

[Urbanized]

I edited my previous post to include reference to James Howard Kunstler's The Geography of Nowhere, but it's worth posting a link again, just in case someone missed it and doesn't make a habit of scrolling back through threads. I think that book and the arguments therein are relevant to this discussion.

[David Pollard]

Thanks Wil for pointing this out.

From my 5,000 miles and 30 years away from OKC, I can only shake my head in dismay at how the city continues to disregard its heritage and simply destroy what is no longer in style, deemed appropriate or financially viable. Today it is Stage Center, tomorrow Union Bus Station, in 10 years, the Chase tower. I really do simply give up. Glad I made the decision when I did to move to a place where people have a little more respect for their past as they know that it has a direct influence on their future. My last word on this sad topic.

[Rover]

David, what city did you move to?

[Rover]

So, understanding the desire or social responsibility aspect, is the government of the city supposed to commit the money, or do we force the property owners to keep it until either they or a buyer becomes responsible?

[Just the facts]

I still don't see how people are making the leap to call Stage Center an integral piece of OKC history. OKC is NOT known for the Stage Center. It never has been, and it never will be. Also, referencing The Geography of Nowhere to support keeping a dead suburban structure in the heart of what is supposed to be the most walkable area in the city isn't a good idea. Followers of the New Urbanism would be hard pressed to support such a small functional area taking up an entire city block with 100 to 200 foot setbacks.

I wonder how much it would cost to build Stage Center from scratch at another location.

[ljbab728]

OKC is NOT known for the Stage Center. It never has been, and it never will be.

Kerry, there are very few buildings, if any, that OKC is known for. That's not a relevant argument.

[MDot]

Kerry, there are very few buildings, if any, that OKC is known for. That's not a relevant argument.

Ahem, there is one that we are known for by skyscraper enthusiasts all over the world. =)

[Questor]

Thanks Wil for pointing this out.

From my 5,000 miles and 30 years away from OKC, I can only shake my head in dismay at how the city continues to disregard its heritage and simply destroy what is no longer in style, deemed appropriate or financially viable. Today it is Stage Center, tomorrow Union Bus Station, in 10 years, the Chase tower. I really do simply give up. Glad I made the decision when I did to move to a place where people have a little more respect for their past as they know that it has a direct influence on their future. My last word on this sad topic.

Agree, it's the same thing again. You know in an odd way Core to Shore is an embodiment of this idea too... Rather than continuing with our current downtown they are basically abandoning it to build something new from scratch to the south. That's basically a 21st Century equivalent to the IM Pei plan and no one notices....

[David Pollard]

..

[David Pollard]

Thanks Wil for pointing this out.

From my 5,000 miles and 30 years away from OKC, I can only shake my head in dismay at how the city continues to disregard its heritage and simply destroy what is no longer in style, deemed appropriate or financially viable. Today it is Stage Center, tomorrow Union Bus Station, in 10 years, the Chase tower. I really do simply give up. Glad I made the decision when I did to move to a place where people have a little more respect for their past as they know that it has a direct influence on their future. My last word on this sad topic.

Amsterdam

[ljbab728]

Amsterdam

I have been to Amsterdam more than once and I love it. The Grand Hotel Krasnapolsky on Dom Square is my favorite. It's hardly a city you can compare to OKC though any more than any European city. Besides the fact that it is centuries older it has a topography that dictates what can be done.

[David Pollard]

You know, I think we are talking about a state of mind here. Whoever the owner of any building may be, and whatever interest the city may have, it is a question of standing back for a moment and asking why we are destroying a building. If it is 'only' for the profit, should there not be additional control mechanisms to at least consider the long-term view?

I feel qualified to ask this as I grew up in OKC and remember quite clearly how excited I was myself to see the old buildings blown up downtown to make way for the new modern city that was only to begin to be realized some 25 years later. Only in the past 10-15 years have I come to understand what treasures were actually lost in the city; forever! Living as I do now in Amsterdam, there is a completely different perspective here on history and the preservations of buildings with the main focus being on their historical connection. Despite this, this city has a wealth of modern new buildings that blend in beautifully with the past. Skeptics will say that OKC is not Amsterdam, but what is relevant here is the acknowledgment that there is a very real connection between the past present and future in any urban landscape.

To put this poetry into concrete terms though, I would suggest that Stage Center should be preserved, re-purposed, with a very dense, and 'destination' use of the perimeter spaces. Just for the fun of it,..... and because I am bored on this sunny, snowy Saturday morning..... I have put my ideas on 'paper' below.

The mid-rise to the right is a hotel or a condo tower, with a retail base, to the left is an educational (i.e. Fine Arts such as Julliard) institution that relates to the elementary school to the west. Stage Center itself could have any number of functions that complement both/either of these buildings. A new modern art museum would be my preference. Here, I have added a large glass circular atrium that is in the spirit of the original building, but still respects the architecture. Absolutely wonderful things could be done that incorporate the existing building while putting modern facilities into place. I would like to see Devon or one of the other major community supporters vie for the honor of renovating it and 'claiming it' in their name.

[ljbab728]

You know, I think we are talking about a state of mind here. Whoever the owner of any building may be, and whatever interest the city may have, it is a question of standing back for a moment and asking why we are destroying a building. If it is 'only' for the profit, should there not be additional control mechanisms to at least consider the long-term view?

I feel qualified to ask this as I grew up in OKC and remember quite clearly how excited I was myself to see the old buildings blown up downtown to make way for the new modern city that was only to begin to be realized some 25 years later. Only in the past 10-15 years have I come to understand what treasures were actually lost in the city; forever! Living as I do now in Amsterdam, there is a completely different perspective here on history and the preservations of buildings with the main focus being on their historical connection. Despite this, this city has a wealth of modern new buildings that blend in beautifully with the past. Skeptics will say that OKC is not Amsterdam, but what is relevant here is the acknowledgment that there is a very real connection between the past present and future in any urban landscape.

To put this poetry into concrete terms though, I would suggest that Stage Center should be preserved, re-purposed, with a very dense, and 'destination' use of the perimeter spaces. Just for the fun of it,..... and because I am bored on this sunny, snowy Saturday morning..... I have put my ideas on 'paper' below.

The mid-rise to the right is a hotel or a condo tower, with a retail base, to the left is an educational (i.e. Fine Arts such as Julliard) institution that relates to the elementary school to the west. Stage Center itself could have any number of functions that complement both/either of these buildings. A new modern art museum would be my preference. Here, I have added a large glass circular atrium that is in the spirit of the original building, but still respects the architecture. Absolutely wonderful things could be done that incorporate the existing building while putting modern facilities into place. I would like to see Devon or one of the other major community supporters vie for the honor of renovating it and 'claiming it' in their name.

David, maybe you are totally misunderstanding me. I am a big proponent of the Stage Center and it's preservation but to compare OKC to Amsterdam is just not logical. I also remember when the Biltmore was imploded and was excited to see that at the time. I just had no concept then about what it might mean to OKC at a later date.

[David Pollard]

David, maybe you are totally misunderstanding me. I am a big proponent of the Stage Center and it's preservation but to compare OKC to Amsterdam is just not logical. I also remember when the Biltmore was imploded and was excited to see that at the time. I just had no concept then about what it might mean to OKC at a later date.

Actually I think we are on the same line regarding the preservation of Stage Center. My comparison is mainly because these are the two examples I know best: not illogical, just practical. Neither you nor I knew what the repercussions would be now for the mistakes made in the 70's. However in Amsterdam, and even many older cities in the USA, they HAVE had the luxury of looking back at past mistakes (and there were many) and are trying.. in some cases.. not to repeat them. That is my main point. Let's just hold our breath and see how OKC handles this challenge!