Comment 92634

By AnjoMan (registered) | Posted September 26, 2013 at 08:19:11 in reply to Comment 92630

Is it really the churches job to be maintaining buildings so they can be public attractions? I'm wondering what people think about this in comparison to something like the Gore park buildings.

My gut feeling is that it is unfair to ask a group of non-expert volunteers to put their own money behind preserving a church building when the value of that historical preservation is exclusively as an architectural artifact to the public. Most congregations in these buildings, though they may like being in them, are there because their congregation has owned the building since it was built 150 years ago - it seems unfair that now we want to hold them to maintaining those buildings - at considerable expense - just so we can tour them on off days and gaze at the beautiful architecture.

On the other hand, you could apply similar arguments to a building like the Gore park century buildings that Wilson-Blanchard wants to demolish - why is it their problem that we all of the sudden think of those buildings as valuable artifacts and expect them to spend money on preserving them? (I realize that this ignores the better option of 'historical reuse', which would seem more beneficial in the long run for both parties). Is there a difference here?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds