Stage Center

[Urbanized]

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.

JTF, you and I are aligned on a large number of things, but in this case mine wasn't an urbanist argument, nor is "The Geography of Nowhere" strictly a new urbanist book, though urbanism is clearly the foundation of Kunstler's writing. That book also addresses/laments disposable architecture and the rise of generic, crummy "cartoon" buildings with planned lifetimes, built to grab the attention of drivers hauling ass down roads that could be in any town.

Kunstler writes often of "sense of place," and while that most often (and most easily) is associated with urbanist designs, it can also be created through iconic architecture. The book is worth a re-read (for me too), but the reference was appropriate.

Regarding my mentions of the Skirvin that a few people have gotten hung up on, nowhere have I ever claimed the two buildings were comparable in history, community value or usability. All I meant was that somewhere along the way we (the community) decided that the Skirvin was important enough to keep around, even if it cost more to do so than to tear it down and build new, and even if it didn't function quite as perfectly as a modern building.

It was a values choice, not a practicality choice. We (sometimes the public sector, sometimes the private) have made similar values judgments on a few other buildings (notable: Gold Dome, many buildings in Automobile Alley, Bricktown, and elsewhere), but often we decide the fate of a structure based on practicality only, and some of those decisions have been extremely regrettable in hindsight.

My personal opinion on Stage Center: if the architectural community tells us it that it is important and irreplaceable, I would defer to them. I have been a fan of architecture and design since I can remember, and I recognize just because some architecture (or art, or music) might not be my personal taste that doesn't mean it's not important.

That said, I would hope that if it is saved, the lifeline comes from the private sector not the public. If someone wants to step up, be a champion for that building, and do so in a way that makes it viable for years to come, who am I to say they should be spending their money on something else?

And I do think, like David Pollard pointed out, there may be some ways to preserve the building yet make it more sensitive to the urban fabric around it and have it fit/function better within its rapidly-changing environs. If that can be done, I'm all for that too.

But if a white knight doesn't step forward, I think the building is done for.

Sorry to regurgitate all of that at once, but I've been out of town + busy and haven't been able to catch up on this thread.

[Just the facts]

Fair enough Urbanized. I, as much as anyone, appreciate architecture that uses something other than glass (the new EIFS in my book). While I think the building is unique, there comes a tradeoff (for me anyhow) about what is there, and what could be there. I would 100% support rebuilding Stage Center at another location, even downtown, if it sat on about 1/4 the amount of land, or even moving it to the new Central Park. And by 'moving', I don't mean an actual move but a rebuilding from original plans.

[Reggie Jet]

The RFP process is still out there. And I'm basically implying that there's a bid underway that may have some legs to it.

It it's the idea I've heard about—making Stage Center a children's museum—then I think it absolutely has legs. It would almost be like an extension of the Gardens, and would bring a lot of activity to the street as families journeyed down to visit the center and the park across the street. In fact, I'm betting that the tinker-toy aspect to the building makes it a perfect envelope for such an idea.

I certainly hope we save Stage Center. We've lost so much of our wonderful early 20th Century architecture. Today, we say "look at this picture. Look at the kind of architecture we use to have in our city. Isn't it a shame we blew it up?" I just don't want future generations saying something like: "Oh yeah. We used to have a piece of brutalist architecture, too. In fact, it was an award-winning piece of architecture. But we blew that up, too."

[Just the facts]

I am having a hard time believing someone actually suggested enclosing a bunch of kids inside a windowless concrete box and then packing it full of flammable material. That seems to have disaster written all over it.

[Rover]

Fair enough Urbanized. I, as much as anyone, appreciate architecture that uses something other than glass (the new EIFS in my book). While I think the building is unique, there comes a tradeoff (for me anyhow) about what is there, and what could be there. I would 100% support rebuilding Stage Center at another location, even downtown, if it sat on about 1/4 the amount of land, or even moving it to the new Central Park. And by 'moving', I don't mean an actual move but a rebuilding from original plans.

Rebuilding in a different spot is like forgery of an old master. Just like making pseudo old world design buildings doesn't create history. Either the building is worth saving as an important piece of heritage and architectural history, or it isn't. Rebuilding a functionally decrepit design would be insane. Building a shell of it for art's sake would be an even bigger waste of money. Save the original or don't.

[dankrutka]

I am having a hard time believing someone actually suggested enclosing a bunch of kids inside a windowless concrete box and then packing it full of flammable material. That seems to have disaster written all over it.

Well, I taught in a windowless school in OKC for the last 5 years that fits that deacription so I think people around here are good with it.

[Bill Robertson]

If it's the idea I've heard about--making Stage Center a children's museum--then I think it absolutely has legs. It would almost be like an extension of the Gardens, and would bring a lot of activity to the street as families journeyed down to visit the center and the park across the street. In fact, I'm betting that the tinker-toy aspect to the building makes it a perfect envelope for such an idea.

This idea makes more sense than any other I've heard about saving the building. The design makes sense for something for kids. But I still don't see the $ needed to pull it off.

[Questor]

It it's the idea I've heard about—making Stage Center a children's museum—then I think it absolutely has legs. It would almost be like an extension of the Gardens, and would bring a lot of activity to the street as families journeyed down to visit the center and the park across the street. In fact, I'm betting that the tinker-toy aspect to the building makes it a perfect envelope for such an idea.

You know in a strange way, what with its brightly colored "blocks" and all, that makes sense. I really like this.

I certainly hope we save Stage Center. We've lost so much of our wonderful early 20th Century architecture. Today, we say "look at this picture. Look at the kind of architecture we use to have in our city. Isn't it a shame we blew it up?" I just don't want future generations saying something like: "Oh yeah. We used to have a piece of brutalist architecture, too. In fact, it was an award-winning piece of architecture. But we blew that up, too."

Yep!

[shawnw]

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.

I'm not exactly a Stage Center fan boy (incidentally my kids love it), but I like this idea a lot (except with SC itself being a Children's Museum instead of a modern art museum... though maybe it could be both?). Mostly because people have been saying even if you could come up with the cash to save it, where would the cash come from to maintain it, and this is one way it could, by having other for-profit endeavors on the property (which should also make the density-conscious happy). Maybe if a new TIF were setup so that the tax revenue generated by the hotel-condo (why not both?) and educational institution (which could compliment the elementary school nicely) went to "Stage Center Children's Interactive Museum" (reminiscent of the Please Touch Museum in Philly) maintenance, this could all work out...

Off-topic aside...
Your glass atrium makes me think a little bit about the Royal Ontario Museum. They took the old building that was out of space with no room to grow, and they slapped a huge modern structure over it, and though I initially gasped when I saw it, I really kinda liked it once I spent some time with it. It all worked together quite nicely.

[David Pollard]

Glad you like it. The more I read here, the more I think that a Children's Museum would be great! The main entrance can be shifted to the south with the entrance via the atrium. Actually, I would even recommend using large skylights in the roofs of the older sections to create more usable spaces. The purists might be unhappy, but if it is a question of slight modification or demolition, my choice is clear!

As a matter of fact, while we are at it, let's create an entire east/west axis here. We can continue the education/youth theme with a tree-shaded 'mall' or pathway through the elementary school to the West, the Myriad Gardens to the East and, once the Cox is replaced by other development, with another child-or youth oriented theme further east. And to be REALLY symbolic, the further east the axis goes the more 'mature' it would get as it travels through Bricktown. My synical/comic side says we would end up with extreme adult entertainment on the far-east side of Bricktown and an invitro fertilization clinic to the west of the elementary!! (tongue in cheek here!!)

[UnFrSaKn]

Children's Museum being pitched as plan for saving Stage Center

BY STEVE LACKMEYER slackmeyer@opubco.com
Published: February 14, 2012

“Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not.” — Dr. Seuss,” The Lorax.

Tracey Zeeck and Farooq Karim see themselves as living out the words first uttered by Dr. Seuss four decades ago. They are tackling a problem many have dismissed as unfixable. Experts say $40 million will be needed to make their dream come true. And the pair, who didn't even know each other until this month, have just two weeks to create a plan that will overcome all of these odds.

[Just the facts]

It is too bad saving Stage Center takes priority over what would otherewise be a great project. Do you have any idea what kind of Childrens Museum you could build for $40 million if you didn't spend $20 to $30 milliion of it trying to save the building?

[Oil Capital]

It is too bad saving Stage Center takes priority over what would otherewise be a great project. Do you have any idea what kind of Childrens Museum you could build for $40 million if you didn't spend $20 to $30 milliion of it trying to save the building?

But saving Stage Center could tap a whole different group of donors. Some people will want to contribute to saving Stage Center who would not be interested in contributing to a Childrens Museum... and vice versa.

[SoonerDave]

It is too bad saving Stage Center takes priority over what would otherewise be a great project. Do you have any idea what kind of Childrens Museum you could build for $40 million if you didn't spend $20 to $30 milliion of it trying to save the building?

Perfectly stated, JTF. The disingenuity of the idea is just staggering. Plow down that Stage Center for a fraction of that amount and build a world-class children's museum right where it stood!

[SoonerDave]

But saving Stage Center could tap a whole different group of donors. Some people will want to contribute to saving Stage Center who would not be interested in contributing to a Childrens Museum... and vice versa.

But the people interested in saving the Stage Center are already interested in doing so. What more incentive do they need? And what philanthropic soul would love the idea of a "children's museum," but find that the first $20m of their "contribution" will go to rehab a decrepit, miserable, old concrete building rather than a brand new facility, custom-cut to be a museum!?

[Just the facts]

Perfectly stated, JTF. The disingenuity of the idea is just staggering. Plow down that Stage Center for a fraction of that amount and build a world-class children's museum right where it stood!

Building a Children's Museum should be about children, not a carrot to attract donors to saving a building.

[betts]

Not everyone sees the building as miserable and decrepit. I see it as whimsical and worth saving, an iconic downtown building. I guess it depends on who holds which point of view.

[Just the facts]

I can't help but wonder if India Temple would still be standing if someone had proposed a Children's Museum for it.

The Atlanta Children's Museum

[Bill Robertson]

But saving Stage Center could tap a whole different group of donors. Some people will want to contribute to saving Stage Center who would not be interested in contributing to a Childrens Museum... and vice versa.

I keep reading this over and over. But no one with any money has stepped up to save it in all these years. I know there are lots of people that want to save the building but do these people have the funds. I don't think so.

[Richard at Remax]

Random but I think an aquarium would be really cool on that site. have some sort of tie in to the park

[G.Walker]

[jedicurt]

Random but I think an aquarium would be really cool on that sight. have some sort of tie in to the park

i've thought for a long time that the OKC Zoo should get rid of their Aquarium there and put a much larger Aquarium in downtown... this would give the Zoo more area to expand exhibits, and give something to do on weekend in downtown...

[Oil Capital]

I keep reading this over and over. But no one with any money has stepped up to save it in all these years. I know there are lots of people that want to save the building but do these people have the funds. I don't think so.

Did you really need to read it over and over to come up with that question? It was really a pretty straight-forward post... ;-) In any event, I don't know the answer to that question. Perhaps people with interest and money just need a good plan for the use of the building...

[Bill Robertson]

Did you really need to read it over and over to come up with that question? It was really a pretty straight-forward post... ;-) In any event, I don't know the answer to that question. Perhaps people with interest and money just need a good plan for the use of the building...

I meant that it has been posted by many here that there are a lot of people that want to save the building.

[Bellaboo]

I'd say relocate it to C2S, but don't build it in a hole, then use that parcel for the next skyscraper. The land sale would pay for the salvation (relocation) of SC, and open up prime park frontage for another devonisque tower.