http://www.okgazette.com/p/12776/a/6746/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=LwBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0AC4AYQB zAHAAeAAslashAHAAPQAxADIANwAyADkA

I didn't realize it was that bad. I hope they will repair everything. I hate to see it close permanently, or be torn down.

With all the flood damage Stage Center has sustained, it will most likely be torn down, and the lot will be converted into a giant plaza.

This is a very dysfunctional building and I would never recommend the design for a new PAC--but I would sure as hell fight to save it. It's a unique and cool design that shouldn't and probably won't ever be recreated. It's had flooding problems for as long as I can remember..and it will flood again the next ten years, mark my words. We just need to expect it I guess and be better prepared to mitigate the damage. The building is worth it in my opinion.

With all the flood damage Stage Center has sustained, it will most likely be torn down, and the lot will be converted into a giant plaza.

boo boo boo!

If it is torn down I would recommend a violent over throw of the city government. That is possibly the most valuable piece of modern architecture in the OKC metro. To loose it would be a monumental loss. I think I Would literally cry...

It is a masterpiece of a truly great architect , John Johansen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Johansen), Johansen's models are even a part of the moma collection. And our own home town rock star architect gave it a renovation in 1992.

If that building is torn down, Im moving...

Although, I hear plazas are really in these days

There is no chance that building will be torn down. It was extremely controversial when it was built but it's an OKC icon now.

If it is torn down I would recommend a violent over throw of the city government. That is possibly the most valuable piece of modern architecture in the OKC metro. To loose it would be a monumental loss. I think I Would literally cry...

It is a masterpiece of a truly great architect , John Johansen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_M._Johansen), Johansen's models are even a part of the moma collection. And our own home town rock star architect gave it a renovation in 1992.

If that building is torn down, Im moving...

Although, I hear plazas are really in these days

I think it's one of those pieces of starchitecture that are so cool in spite of their poor dysfunctional design and layout. It must be preserved.

I think it's one of those pieces of starchitecture that are so cool in spite of their poor dysfunctional design and layout. It must be preserved.

It does seem a little like a maze when you're inside of it but I think that makes it more interesting.

It does seem a little like a maze when you're inside of it but I think that makes it more interesting.

This ^

I never went there often, but I would surely miss the opportunity to return should it go dark permanently.

Yes, it must be saved. Definitely an OKC icon in the architecture world.

It will take an extreme effort of private funding to get it rehabbed and have new systems installed to make it an efficient space. Cost estimates I've heard are anywhere between $20-$25 million to bring it up to par.

It might be hard to make it pay as a commercial building. So the question is, does the city "mothball" it and preserve the outside so as to have a piece of "architectural art" as a cost to society, or does the city impose a tax to rehab it and to subsidize it for public use? Is the public that doesn't frequent it willing to pay a tax on it regardless of the use rate?

It will take an extreme effort of private funding to get it rehabbed and have new systems installed to make it an efficient space. Cost estimates I've heard are anywhere between $20-$25 million to bring it up to par.

What would it cost to just repair the damage done by flooding, and get it back to where it was a month ago?

And let me just mention that in OKC the performing arts are never going to pay for themselves..we're lucky to have as many private beneficiaries of the arts as we do here.

I don't know about cost just to get it back up to basic operations. Haven't heard those. Have just been in with folks who are committed to seeing a total rehab of the building, and the cost estimates are really frightening. I agree, our performing arts here, as in many cities, will always need private support and subsidies. The question is, given the total capacity and space availability of Stage Center, it won't even come close to breaking even.

Don't get me wrong, it's an architectural gem, of historical significance to the city, and should be preserved in some capacity. You just have to ask yourself at what cost? The price of $25 million is roughly half the cost of what it took to redo the Civic Center Music Hall during MAPS I. (Was budgeted at $26 million; they ended up spending $52.4 million. Certainly worth it given the #of shows and attendees).

How large is the Stage Center? It's so winding and such an interesting design, with bizarre spacial relations, that it is absolutely impossible to get a feel for it in person to compare to size of it to the Civic Center. Maybe 1/4th? It's certainly significant, at least.

I think anything that they do to it, they need to remove the trees that they have tried to cover it up with. Those trees are really unsightly, and just make it worse in my opinion.

The arts do often need patrons, but there are shades of grey. In this case, the cost of refurbing the building will most likely be great. It is my understanding that it has never been very efficient at heating and cooling, so even with upgrades that could be an expensive challenge. In most cases, patrons will cover SOME expense, but if the expense is too great and the attendance is too low they won't. I have gone to many events there in the past, but none seemed well attended. And the building, while an architectural curiosity and gem, isn't practical and not designed to be so. The building needs protecting, but it will be expensive. And people need to USE it to justify it. I hope it makes it.

I get what you're saying, it's just a weird choice of words for someone arguing FOR something to say they want the city to subsidize the arts. Usually isn't thought of like that by people who are for the arts..




It might be hard to make it pay as a commercial building. So the question is, does the city "mothball" it and preserve the outside so as to have a piece of "architectural art" as a cost to society, or does the city impose a tax to rehab it and to subsidize it for public use? Is the public that doesn't frequent it willing to pay a tax on it regardless of the use rate?

How large is the Stage Center? It's so winding and such an interesting design, with bizarre spacial relations, that it is absolutely impossible to get a feel for it in person to compare to size of it to the Civic Center. Maybe 1/4th? It's certainly significant, at least.

I think anything that they do to it, they need to remove the trees that they have tried to cover it up with. Those trees are really unsightly, and just make it worse in my opinion.

Interestingly enough the large number of trees and landscaping were done specifically to hide the building originally because it was thought to be so ugly.

The architecture of the Stage Center is like a red wine with a strong aftertaste..someone who's a moron and has never tasted wine before might reach for the tea sweetener and sprinkle a packet..or two, into that otherwise perfectly good glass of wine. That is the EXACT same as putting a plaza or ugly (unintended) trees in front of a building to cover it up.

(Although planting trees in normal conditions is a GREAT thing for the community..kind of like putting sweetener in tea, where it belongs)

The architecture of the Stage Center is like a red wine with a strong aftertaste..someone who's a moron and has never tasted wine before might reach for the tea sweetener and sprinkle a packet..or two, into that otherwise perfectly good glass of wine. That is the EXACT same as putting a plaza or ugly (unintended) trees in front of a building to cover it up.

(Although planting trees in normal conditions is a GREAT thing for the community..kind of like putting sweetener in tea, where it belongs)

Things like this always remind me of Paris. The Parisiens have in the past been aghast at structures like the Eiffel Tower, the Pompidou Centre, and the glass pyramid entrance in front of the Louvre. They later learned to love and embrace them.

I love Stage Center! I think it is extremely unique and something that OKC should be proud of. The internal layout is maze-like, but there always seems to be a surprise at every corner. The performance areas are no better or worse than others I have been in. It should definitely be re-habbed because it would be a shame to lose such an architectural gem!

Maybe Devon will pony up the money. It IS right in their new 'hood. I doubt that they would want a gutted out, flooded building catty-cornered to their sparkling new tower.

The architecture of the Stage Center is like a red wine with a strong aftertaste..someone who's a moron and has never tasted wine before might reach for the tea sweetener and sprinkle a packet..or two, into that otherwise perfectly good glass of wine. That is the EXACT same as putting a plaza or ugly (unintended) trees in front of a building to cover it up.

(Although planting trees in normal conditions is a GREAT thing for the community..kind of like putting sweetener in tea, where it belongs)

Yes, and sometimes bad wine just needs to be emptied down the drain. It will never get better.

I know you are a hater of plazas, but they don't hide buildings. And done correctly can enhance, just as proper landscaping (trees) can. Some people like Syrah and some people like Champaigne. Both can be great and both can be bad.

I remember attending plays at the Mummer's before it was in Stage Center. Then when it moved there I attended very often for several years. I really enjoyed the intimacy provided by both theaters and always felt that the experience of the performance was enhanced by the place itself.

But the building was hard to heat and cool even then and there were maintenance problems associated with nearly every aspect of the structure as I recall. I do recall a lot of complaints and disparaging comments about the design.

It is definitely one of those things which should be preserved in my opinion.

Yes, and sometimes bad wine just needs to be emptied down the drain. It will never get better.

I know you are a hater of plazas, but they don't hide buildings. And done correctly can enhance, just as proper landscaping (trees) can. Some people like Syrah and some people like Champaigne. Both can be great and both can be bad.

So do you think the trees intended to cover up the Stage Center and distract from its design are a good thing to have in place? Just wondering..because so far nobody has said they like those, and I'd be interested to hear someone who does like them.

I kind of like the contrast of the building with the woodland feel. An interesting counterpoint. But I do think the ones on the front side are getting too big and maybe on or two more than there should be. And honestly, Spartan, I would hate to see them all removed. It would be TOO stark. And for the record, I LOVE the building and would be one of those that would throw his body in front of the bulldozers if they decided to destroy it.

Fair enough USG--but what do you think Johansen would say about the "woodland feel?"

I think this has the potential to be a very interesting discussion. Here in a city that does not have enough trees and is in desperate need of more SHADE, one place where we planted trees was in an attempt to cover up a stark ultramodern landmark with a "woodland feel."

Well it is a matter of taste AND a matter of degrees. I went back and looked at pictures when it was new and to me it seemed like a picture with no frame. To me the counterpoint of the rustic look increases the "interest" of the bldg. I happen to love contrast in design ...sometimes.

So do you think the trees intended to cover up the Stage Center and distract from its design are a good thing to have in place? Just wondering..because so far nobody has said they like those, and I'd be interested to hear someone who does like them.

You think the trees are unsightly???? So you would prefer the suburban Moore look of a building with a big treeless yard?? They aren't there to "cover up the ugly". It's called landscaping. It's part of the area where the Festival of the Arts takes place and flows right into the Myriad Gardens. It's not a woodland. It shade. It's perfectly appropriate and I don't see why you dislike the trees. It's not like they're Bradford Pears. They're nice, mature sycamores.

If the trees had placing that suggested any uniformity in relation to the trees and not in relation to the building, that would be different. If the trees lined the sidewalk, that would be useful shade, and I should support that. But a building does not need shade..that is what the trees are shading. And it is a well-known fact, that has been mentioned in several articles, that the trees exist for the purpose of covering up the stunning architecture of the Stage Center.

That's pretty much an urban legend. And the reason they are scattered it because it is essentially a park around the building, so yes, they aren't all over the sidewalk.

Are you really saying that 100% of those trees don't belong?

Well, I can't make an affirmative statement like that sitting in front of a computer. So you believe that's just an urban legend?

So who made the decision to "cover up" the architecture with trees? If we know for a fact that it was explicitly for that purpose, then we should know who made that determination.

I don't think trees or landscaping has to be exactly uniform and symmetrical to be a positive part of the architecture.

I also think that the effect of the plantings changes over time if trees are not pruned and "trained" but just let to grow.

That's pretty much an urban legend. And the reason they are scattered it because it is essentially a park around the building, so yes, they aren't all over the sidewalk.

Are you really saying that 100% of those trees don't belong?

That's not an urban legend. I remember well when the Stage Center was built and the controversy about its stark design and how well it fit in. I can't provide you any links but I know that the landscaping was designed to limit that criticism.

Wow, I am impressed. I have a hard time remembering what I had for lunch and we have people here who clearly remember the reasons for tree planting from 40 years ago...even people who weren't even born yet. That's pretty impressive. LOL

Wow, I am impressed. I have a hard time remembering what I had for lunch and we have people here who clearly remember the reasons for tree planting from 40 years ago...even people who weren't even born yet. That's pretty impressive. LOL

Impressed or not, I do remember that specifically. I was fascinated by the Stage Center when it opened and followed subsequent events about it closely. And I assure you I was born many, many years before then. LOL You just don't understand how much local criticism that building received after it was built.

Wow, I am impressed. I have a hard time remembering what I had for lunch and we have people here who clearly remember the reasons for tree planting from 40 years ago...even people who weren't even born yet. That's pretty impressive. LOL

Difference between long term & short term memory. My grandparents were excellent at giving minute details from decades ago, but ask them if they took their medicine today...

Difference between long term & short term memory. My grandparents were excellent at giving minute details from decades ago, but ask them if they took their medicine today...

I even remember taking my medicine today too. LOL

I have a couple of those weekly pill reminder boxes (one for AM meds & PM meds), if I had to do it strictly from memory, would be missing doses and over dosing...LOL

Regardless of why they were put up, I think the trees look good and should stay.

I thought you were against windswept plazas, Nick.

I don't feel like what the Stage Center needs is a plaza..it just needs the trees to be taken out. It needs to be less shielded from the street. It needs to feel like a part of the Arts District, even when there's not a festival going on.

Some of you would probably be amazed at all the trees and vegetation in New York City. And, of course Paris and other cities. Trees aren't bad. Green is not bad. There is more to "urban" than stark stone, brick and concrete.

I would like the structure to be more visible. Never did really think it should be hidden because it is such an interesting structure.

Some of you would probably be amazed at all the trees and vegetation in New York City. And, of course Paris and other cities. Trees aren't bad. Green is not bad. There is more to "urban" than stark stone, brick and concrete.

I wholeheartedly agree.

One thing I do notice in OKC as opposed to some other cities is that trees are rarely pruned and shaped correctly...they are just left to grow. I think that may be more the issue with Stage Center, not the fact they are there. The city needs to have somebody on staff to manage the trees that already exist.

http://www.okgazette.com/article/08-13-2010/Stage_Center_to_remain_vacant_at_least_one_year.as px

sad. understandable in light of the damage, but sad all the same.

Surely, some of our good corporate citizens could find some way to fit this into their donation budgets for civic improvements.

http://www.okgazette.com/article/08-18-2010/Ravaged_by_flooding_Stage_Center_will_close_for_at _least_a_year_as_the_Arts_Council_of_Oklahoma_City _figures_out_a_long-term_plan.aspx

EBAH - We're sorry to see you leave.

The issue is money. Even before it flooded, key groups weren't interested in continuing or commencing funding of this building. City of OKC, Arts Council or Devon. If you want to see it preserved, then open your checkbook (hope you've got a big balance).

"Instant beautification" pretty much says it all. There is a lot of backstory to the Mummers Theatre and how this building came to be, and what happened after not even one season of performances... I'm working to document some of it now. Let's just say that its demise was in the best tradition of the power of the OKC Elite of the time.

I truly hope that someone in this city (Keesee?) will stand up the money to make this right. It really is a historical piece of architecture.

http://i915.photobucket.com/albums/ac357/golem_phtos/mummers/d7dbb7f7.jpg

"The site will be adjacent to and complement the Myriad Gardens now being planned."

And now the Myriad Gardens are being RENOVATED as part of Project 180.

Just goes to show how some things fill a need, receive support, evolve and are reborn. But not all things.