OG&E Tower

[OKCisOK4me]

I don't disagree. Yet, it's all relative, is it not? Also this is OKCTalk, not skyscraperpage, although I think thread title by address is a good idea.

That it is. I checked my thread. No one has even looked at it, but I had to disguise it in such a generic fashion so that if someone opens the thread and sees just the pic then they can respond with "why yessss, that building is an iconic and cherished work of architecture" or they can respond with "why is this pic from the 1970s?" lol. It'll probably be torn down before my post gets a response...

[zookeeper]

That it is. I checked my thread. No one has even looked at it, but I had to disguise it in such a generic fashion so that if someone opens the thread and sees just the pic then they can respond with "why yessss, that building is an iconic and cherished work of architecture" or they can respond with "why is this pic from the 1970s?" lol. It'll probably be torn down before my post gets a response...

I answered you in another thread. Your logic is faulty with your "experiment."

I wrote: You miss the point. Completely. It has nothing to do with how many recognize the Stage Center. Nothing. That's not what makes it valuable. It is art - in and of itself. I could show you many paintings that you wouldn't "recognize" but I would then tell you how much preservation went into them and how they sold for millions of dollars. Your not knowing about that painting has nothing to do with its value as art.

It's obvious you hate the Stage Center with all the "hamster tubes and boxes" comments. You see that, many others see art - beauty. And possibilities!

[Prunepicker]

I'm pretty sure that I'm on record for tearing this eye sore down. Take a
bunch of photos and build a $250,000 building to show them. Charge
admission too. That'll let us know what the city really think of this
monstrosity.

[Naptown12713]

I found this video of a mid-rise tower in Milwaukee that could be a precursor of the Stage/OGE proposal. Click link to view: 833 East Michigan

[OKCisOK4me]

I answered you in another thread. Your logic is faulty with your "experiment."

I wrote: You miss the point. Completely. It has nothing to do with how many recognize the Stage Center. Nothing. That's not what makes it valuable. It is art - in and of itself. I could show you many paintings that you wouldn't "recognize" but I would then tell you how much preservation went into them and how they sold for millions of dollars. Your not knowing about that painting has nothing to do with its value as art.

It's obvious you hate the Stage Center with all the "hamster tubes and boxes" comments. You see that, many others see art - beauty. And possibilities!

I could create the most amazing sand castle on the beach and it could be a work of art until the tide comes in and removes it. Whether I know the artist or not--mind you I am an artist myself and I have studied artists and majored in graphic art and graphic design--this work of art from the Brutalist Period of architecture is not something I prefer to love but love to hate.

[jccouger]

One argument I've heard constantly throughout this is the people who want to keep the Stage Center, unless we were getting a truly iconic world class structure, is that all we care about is "tall & shiny"..

Really though, if you are the one wanting the Stage Center torn down to get this building which is taller, which is shinier.. who is really a part of the "tall & shiny crowd"? Hypocritical and ironic, Don'tcha say?

I care about keeping a one of a kind structure, unless we are replacing it with another one of a kind structure which should be far and way better than what is already there. Not just some boring corporate mid rise, which we MAY or MAY NOT even get.

[jccouger]

Seriously though, you guys realize the "plans" for this site are all conceptual right? That means that somebody just drew a pretty picture. No architects were involved in the design at all. Just some computer nerd who is good at graphic design. In fact, people on OKCtalk have been posting conceptual plans for this site for the last 2 years and those are just as legitimate as this concept is. The actual building we are gonna get will be 1/10 as visually appealing as the concepts we are shown now. But you guys can't wrap your head around that because obviously you guys just regurgitate everything that is thrown right in front of your faces.

You guys have been posting bull**** stats about the stage center from the get go just because somebody told you its true. Those maintenance costs are bull****, the time frame Stage center has been nonfunctional is bull****, the only reason the stage center flooded was because of human error of destroying some of the doors NOT because of the design.

[shawnw]

Somebody is grouchy this morning.

[Urbanized]

He's probably just tired of all of the really ugly talk coming from one direction.

[Just the facts]

I found this video of a mid-rise tower in Milwaukee that could be a precursor of the Stage/OGE proposal. Click link to view: 833 East Michigan

This is on the front page of paper this morning here in Jax. The Jacksonville Landing is going away and replaced with a very similar RW type design.
Landing owner Tony Sleiman and Mayor Alvin Brown agree: It's time to build an entirely new Jacksonville Landing | members.jacksonville.com



BTW - this type of design is known as the Vancouver Model (but here in America we substitute car parking for residential units).

For more info on the Vancouver Model you can read this.

http://designobserver.com/media/pdf/...nism:__647.pdf

[Urbanized]

Hard to tell from the rendering, but that really doesn't seem to have good interaction with the waterfront. That is always a head scratcher to me when that happens.

[Just the facts]

Hard to tell from the rendering, but that really doesn't seem to have good interaction with the waterfront. That is always a head scratcher to me when that happens.

Not to derail this thread but the current Landing creates a barrier between downtown Jax and the river plus has no sidewalk interaction on the city side of the building. This proposal is way better and the riverfront will be lined with sidewalk cafes and public art, with office space in the podium fronting the river. Plus by having the open space in the podium it will create a really nice terminal view of the river and stage from Laura St, which is Jacksonville's premier New Urbanism demonstrator street. This project is going to 'right' so many 'wrongs' present in downtown Jax.

Sorry to everyone for the slight detour but I thought it was relevant to show similar projects in other cities. Now back to our regularly scheduled program - Stage Center.

[Urbanized]

Great news then. Like I said, hard to tell that from the rendering. Ignoring waterfronts is usually even more prevalent than ignoring street interaction.

[BDP]

What if a new Stage Center Theater were rebuilt? I really like this idea, the more I think on it. What if the way to save Stage Center is to duplicate it somewhere else? It's not the actual items used to make it and the way they were put together in the '70s that makes it unique. It's the design. Why don't we just rebuild Stage Center Theater ... somewhere else?

I think that people who do view it as a work of art would react the same way they would if you suggested that the destruction of any original work of art is mitigated, or even justified, because it can now be duplicated. It's certainly a more sentimental than rational reaction, but I can kind of understand it. However, if demolition becomes imminent, I'm sure such a compromise would be considered, though probably never funded.

I'm a big advocate of stage center and I have already stated my reasons why, but I have realized that Stage Center will never be (and probably never was) the type of work that will be appreciated by the Oklahoma City population at large. It's just too different and unlike anything else around. That not only leads to it being branded an eyesore, but it's so offensive to the status quo that many have the position that it MUST be torn down, regardless of whether the site is re-purposed. In addition, its seems a common opinion is that architectural ambition is defined more by size and less by the uniqueness of the structure. At the end of the day, we really do live in a culture that is pretty much defined by it's efforts to achieve homogeneity and, if we're being honest with ourselves, Oklahoma is pretty well known for taking that to the extremes. It just makes sense that its developmental process and architectural mix would reflect that.

You can put it anywhere you want and most will still look at it and say:



And around here, that's not a good thing. Our mission statement is to "be the same", and Stage Center is never going to get much love (or money) no matter what you do with it because it's just too darn different looking.

[Urbanized]

^^^^^

Indeed.

[Pete]

Steve is tweeting live from the Downtown Design Review Committee:

https://twitter.com/stevelackmeyer

[Pete]

Steve's OKC Central ‏@stevelackmeyer 22m
Dedmon says a possible green roof would provide amenities to OGE, screen the parking from the building and rest of downtown.

Sounds like the roof would only be open to OG&E, not the public.

It also sounds like OG&E is the only tenant for this project, outside the possibility of Williams spinning off a parcel to be developed by someone else.

[tomokc]

You guys have been posting bull**** stats about the stage center from the get go just because somebody told you its true. Those maintenance costs are bull****, the time frame Stage center has been nonfunctional is bull****, the only reason the stage center flooded was because of human error of destroying some of the doors NOT because of the design.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Have you spoken with anyone who has used the building in the past several years? Check Steve Lackmeyer's tweets beginning at 10:00 when Peter Dolese (OKC Arts Council) describes his experiences with the building, the operating costs, building system repair costs, the subsidies for performance groups, and what was lost in the floods.

[Jim Kyle]

It's just too different and unlike anything else around. That not only leads to it being branded an eyesore, but it's so offensive to the status quo that many have the position that it MUST be torn down, regardless of whether the site is re-purposed.
...snip...
Our mission statement is to "be the same", and Stage Center is never going to get much love (or money) no matter what you do with it because it's just too darn different looking.

This seems to be a widely held opinion among many posters in these threads. However a number of counter-examples exist. If we're all so opposed to anything unusual, how do you explain the success of efforts to save the Gold Dome at NW 23 and Classen, or for that matter the Milk Bottle a couple of blocks to the north.

Another example can be found at NW 36 and Walker, where the late Rev. Bill Alexander built his "Church of Tomorrow" AKA "The Big Easter Egg."

Sure, these examples are "unlike anything else around" and that makes them unusual -- but they exist and at least some of them are cherished by the general public. Many, if not most, examples of Brutalist Architecture are, however, simply brutal. That's what many of us (including myself) find offensive, not the fact that a structure may be unique!

[Urbanized]

I will say, however, that the "eyesore" and "TEAR IT DOWN!!" screaming drumbeat usually starts as soon as ANY proposed candidate for demolition enters the collective consciousness, regardless of the architectural style or a building's individual merit. Some people just like to see stuff torn down (I think they often - or always - equate it with progress) and generally regard any talk of preservation as the senseless drivel of good-for-nothing filthy hippie building huggers.

If a good but troubled building can stay off of the radar long enough for the right visionary or champion to discover it, sometimes it has a chance. Witness: Marion Hotel, Journal Record Building, Skirvin Hotel, Main Street Arcade, 9th Street houses, Braniff, Plaza Court, most of the buildings left standing in Automobile Alley, the old section of Bricktown, and Film Row. All of them provide a sense of place and uniqueness that could not have been bought at any price with new construction.

Stage Center: definitely NOT off of the radar these days. The screamers and shouters will definitely get their wish here.

[Urbanized]

This seems to be a widely held opinion among many posters in these threads. However a number of counter-examples exist. If we're all so opposed to anything unusual, how do you explain the success of efforts to save the Gold Dome at NW 23 and Classen, or for that matter the Milk Bottle a couple of blocks to the north.

Another example can be found at NW 36 and Walker, where the late Rev. Bill Alexander built his "Church of Tomorrow" AKA "The Big Easter Egg."

Sure, these examples are "unlike anything else around" and that makes them unusual -- but they exist and at least some of them are cherished by the general public. Many, if not most, examples of Brutalist Architecture are, however, simply brutal. That's what many of us (including myself) find offensive, not the fact that a structure may be unique!

Those buildings all found their particular champion, Jim. Some do, some don't. Fact of life. Stage center has not, for the reasons BDP eloquently outlines above. Turn the page.

[tomokc]

Say that the entire process concludes (including district court) and the demolition permit is denied. RW is stuck with the land and building. What next?

[Pete]

Say that the entire process concludes (including district court) and the demolition permit is denied. RW is stuck with the land and building. What next?

I don't think that will happen but in the unlikely event it does...

Then I suppose Rainey will get real serious about finding someone who wants to renovate and repurpose the property, otherwise he eats $4.2 million.

[Urbanized]

By the way, the Gold Dome ain't exactly unique. Worth saving? Absolutely. But it is a REPLICA of a Buckminster Fuller design, and examples exist all over the country.

Unlike almost any other building in OKC, Mummers was actually designed for the site by an internationally-acclaimed architect. It is truly unique, was groundbreaking for its era, and was recognized as such by the AIA and MoMA.

Fort Worth:



Centenary College:

[Pete]

Vote is starting to happen and there are already two committee members who are in favor of demolition.