||This is a repost after reading many of the comments on the sfc demolition. My original opinion was to raze the building, and after reading comments, my position is still to raze the building. It does not appear that many of the supporters of saving the church building offer any real advantage to giving a "stay of execution". How would our neighborhood benefit in leaving the building in tack? Are these ardent supporters intending to preserve and repair the building themselves, donating funding, and bringing in parishoneers to support it afterwards? These architects that are roadblocking progress, do they even live in this neighborhood or the city? The impetus of saving this building at the expense of progress and revitalization, completely escapes my realm of understanding, considering the current conditions and needs of oak park and the surrounding areas.
I certainly understand people wanting to save this building, not because of "architectual significance", but because it holds some sort of significance to them, they have history in this building. Which if it were simply a matter of saving a building and not a community, I would also vote to save it. However, that is not the case. So much hinges on the outcome of this decision, that it becomes increasingly important to see the bigger picture. The people in this community need to do what is good for them, by making appropriate decisions that enable progress and a secure future for our neighborhood. It would be prudent to remember that motives are rarely unselfish when listening to out-of-town architects present their case to save this building. When its all said and done they won't be around, and we all are going to have to live with the outcome, good or bad.