it never ceases to amaze me how some architects are impressed simply by something being unique rather than how the structure fits into the usability of its owner, much less by how it is received by the public at large. the baum building and the criterion were victims of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. stage center has seen a continuous flow of various theater groups being unable to continue to operate in a facility described as a masterpiece only by architects patting each other on the back.

i have not advocated its destruction, but i am certainly not in favor of tax dollars saving it. i do not love it, nor do i hate it. i find its design to be a novelty, but i think it pales in comparison to other worthy buildings that have been destroyed. as noted above, i think if it is truly useful (even as an example), it could be cheaply and easily reproduced in another location where it would not be subject to flooding. i seriously doubt that there would be any takers on such a proposition, and i have a pretty good idea as to why that would not happen.

i’m sorry you didn’t find my observations interesting, but i suspect i’m not the only one who holds these views, and i suspect that many are far less charitable than i have been.

It can be fixed Jeffrey. If you want to get technical, I would be happy to discuss it. And David, your comparison is weak and doesn’t deserve consideration.

I’m of the opinion that when it comes to stage center,some people are trying christmas wrap a tin can while trying to convince us its gold.