Thanks so much!

I just did a quick scan of the city code, and this section seemed the most applicable:

"3300.2. Powers. Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, the Historic Preservation Commission shall have the following powers:
...
E. To recommend to the City Council the acquisition of development rights, façade, conservation, or preservation easements and the development of historic preservation plans. "

So I guess a formal recommendation from the HP commission will, in theory, inform the council members' votes.

Looks like First Christian is on the agenda for next weeks HP commission meeting. There’s also this ominous sounding agenda item:

Enter into executive session on advice of the Municipal Counselor to receive confidential communications from its attorney concerning the threatened litigation related to initiating the Historic Landmark designation process for the First Christian Church located at 3700 N. Walker Ave as authorized by 25 O.S. (2018 Supp.) §307(B)(4), because disclosure would seriously impair the ability of the public body to deal with the threatened litigation in the public interest.

Is that essentially a threat to sue the city?

Is that essentially a threat to sue the city?

Sounds like it to me, which matches up with the story that the owners/pastors/whoever does *not* want an historic designation at all for the church (and maybe other structures on the property). And I'm kind of confused by that - yes, historic designations make some things harder to do (you couldn't paint it green, for example), but not sure what they would want to do that would run afoul of the designation. Sounds like they just want to be able to do whatever they want to with it (including sell it) without anybody having any say in it. But that's just my take, I'm not part of the congregation, and may not know the full story, but I can't understand why they're opposing the historic designation so vociferously.

Holy cow, 'threatened litigation'... That is not at all the same thing as the owner of a property opposing the efforts to make it a landmark. THAT has already happened. First Christian had their attorney file a letter with the city stating that.

So this is different. They are now threatening to sue the city over this matter.

The only reason they would sue is because they feel like the landmark designation being forced upon them would diminish the value of their property; and that would only happen if they planned to sell to someone who wants to demolish or significantly alter the buildings.

It does indeed sound ominous, especially in light of the fact that other potential buyers have emerged.

I can't understand why they're opposing the historic designation so vociferously.

It's pretty simple- The congregation has been dwindling for years thus incrementally ratcheting up the pressure on the church entity's actual existence. They feel like they have been good stewards with the property and anchor in the community. They are offended that people concerned for the property aren't concerned at all with their liturgical mission in life.

I thought the video of the council meeting was interesting. David Box was clearly aggrieved and emotionally conflicted. He sees the statutes clearly and that they favor the church. Box typically has a professional relationship with the council and wins big for his clients again and again. I think he probably sees this as a race against the clock that undermines and threatens the church's ability to execute their lawful rights.

As I have stated in earlier posts, I personally think the building should be saved. To not think it is a landmark is laughable. However, this entire fiasco can be directly blamed on former City Manager Jim Couch. The plans for a landmarking statute have been sitting on the Planning Department's shelf for years collecting dust. Couch has always been beholden to corporate interests and held a pro-economic belief that businesses should do whatever they want at all costs to generate jobs and anchor the community economically. Right or wrong, that philosophy has led to countless destruction of landmark-worthy properties imop.

This entire situation is ridiculous and directly due to his recalcitrance in allowing former Planning Directors to implement a reasonable mechanism to assess historic and architecturally significant properties. Expect a policy to be rapidly implemented with Couch gone and this raging debate about this landmark happening. The question is after a policy is implemented and assessments occur, will anything be left of this property's stature?

And it should also be pointed out that the church board president spoke as well and was against landmarking because of its potential implications to building modifications that included ADA compliance. So there is the demolition issue but also an architectural modification issue.

^

And any change to come through the planning department is still going to take a while.

I've heard they are still at least a year away, which supports your points about this being a low priority for Couch, especially since he was city manager for 18 years.

This whole thing would not be such a big deal if we were building interesting buildings all of the time. I can understand why people are emotional about it. This was from an era when limits were meant to be tested. There is definitely an embodiment of the space race in First Christian Church's architecture.

They are also dealing with the evolution of liturgical preferences of people and the shift to secularism by many. There are a great many reasons as to why some of those congregants and pastors are emotional about this public debate.

^

It has more to do with shifting demographics than anything else.

Tons and tons of churches inside the Kilpatrick Turnpike are struggling.

Yet, you have a bunch of megachurches thriving out where people are building new homes and raising young families.

I agree but still yet format, structured liturgy, and worship style has a great deal to do with it as well. Older churches want to hang on to their older base of support by not changing from a highly structured, traditional, and ritualistic format.

In the case of Frontline downtown for example, you actually have many people commuting in to downtown from the suburbs.

First Christian in Edmond is my wife's church. You can observe that it is stable but not exactly growing either. I think that this is something of a post-Catholicism phase that our country has entered into. Disciples of Christ, Methodist churches, and other symbolically Catholic-lite churches are often having a hard time.

But you are right, suburban money does generally prop up those areas and urban churches overall often are struggling. But it definitely both and often reliant on highly individualistic tastes and relationships. Churches that essentially have a high entertainment value (pc- "engagement") and a strong childcare facility have an edge.

Thanks, Pete and UP, had forgotten about the ADA compliance part, and did not know about Couch's heinous hand in all this (I'm soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo glad he's gone, he needed to be gone many many years ago!!!!!!!!!!!).

^

It has more to do with shifting demographics than anything else.

Tons and tons of churches inside the Kilpatrick Turnpike are struggling.

Yet, you have a bunch of megachurches thriving out where people are building new homes and raising young families.

In this regard, the foresight that Crossings had back in the mid-90s was pretty amazing. Others have followed suit and have thrived as Pete said.

https://crossings.church/about/history

I agree but still yet format, structured liturgy, and worship style has a great deal to do with it as well. Older churches want to hang on to their older base of support by not changing from a highly structured, traditional, and ritualistic format.

Many churches saw the need to appeal to younger people and newer styles of worshipping, and many started to offer services with this approach while keeping separate, more traditional services.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for leadership that has been watching these methodical, predictable trends for decades and waited until they went from hundreds if not thousands of members to only a handful, then tries to gain sympathy by claiming they have no real choice. They've had choices all along and should never have let things get to desperation, especially as caretakers of property that is important to the community.

They also were completely unrealistic in their asking price for a long time.

If you’re suggesting I’m being sympathetic, I’m not. I’m just trying to provide context.

And regarding different types of services, I just stating that denominations such as Methodist and Disciples have a structured format that generally revolves around communion, advent, etc even in their “contemporary” services.

That's not totally true. I'm in my late 30's with kids, and i chose First Christian in MWC because its a traditional model church. I don't feel connected at all in large churches (previously went to St. Luke's downtown) and the contemporary services are equally un-moving for me. We try to balance both by encouraging contemporary elements in our service as we have people willing to contribute though (and i definitely support that). There's a whole other debate about megachurches and their actual impact, but i'll save that. Our church picked up and physically moved East back in 2000 to adjust to the moving demographics of the area where our old building was (MWC original mile). It's definitely been a way to help keep our church alive, but of course not all church have that option.

I say that just to say that there are people on both sides of the contemporary/traditional models.

The point is that this particular church has been watching their membership dwindle for decades; from thousands to about 40 (!) currently.

Whatever the reasons, they had half a century to prepare and deserve no sympathy for now getting themselves is some sort of self-described bind which will likely result in the total destruction of the property for which they were caretakers.

Threatening to the sue the city over an entirely legal process demonstrates open hostility and my hope is that any council members previously on the fence will be less likely to support them.

The "Church Of Tomorrow" won't live to retirement age....

I thought this building was a break from the shackles of pre-war church structure and a bold vision of the optimism of the post war era. In physical structure and ministry effort there was a clear display of the limitless, modern Christian ministry of the great Americans who won WWII and were changing the world for good. Letting it go away is a failure of their vision by those who came after, IMO. I think Oklahoma wants that vision to continue today and there has to be a way for current leadership to allow it to move that way.

The point is that this particular church has been watching their membership dwindle for decades; from thousands to about 40 (!) currently.

Whatever the reasons, they had half a century to prepare and deserve no sympathy for now getting themselves is some sort of self-described bind which will likely result in the total destruction of the property for which they were caretakers.

Threatening to the sue the city over an entirely legal process demonstrates open hostility and my hope is that any council members previously on the fence will be less likely to support them.

Find someone who attended the church around 25 years ago. There was a big split in membership support for Rev. Don Alexander causing a great many of the members, especially the younger ones, to leave the church. It wasn't just a case of dwindling. I don't know the details but it is key to the much smaller church.

Speaking as someone that's involved in church leadership, Pete, that comment may be overall true but the solutions are far more complicated that that makes it sound. Churches are living things that require cooperation among all ages. You will see the older folks in the more traditional churches that are stereo typically less willing to adjust. Thankfully, we dont have that problem in our congregation. But it's always a struggle because those older folks are typically the elders and control what the church does. In most of those failed churches, either demographics changed where there just aren't younger folks there any longer or the leaders failed to adjust to attract/keep them. With OKC, you saw both problems.

With ANY church, you need to attract younger families to keep the church alive. Those people are the future of the church just like when those elders were the younger folks. You need things for the younger folks to do together...support structure. You need CHILD CARE for activities. Whether you're traditional or contemporary, same things apply.

It's super easy to simply say 'they didn't adjust so they deserve to close', but that's very not fair to any church.

I think it is fair. And I think it is accurate. It is common for us in the church to say that "we are of the spirit" and "not of the business world", but, in truth, we are in the business of the spirit. We build physical structures and engage in financial transactions. We want our version of the cause of Christ to attract other people. When we are not attractive, people do not attend our church.

I think it is fair. And I think it is accurate. It is common for us in the church to say that "we are of the spirit" and "not of the business world", but, in truth, we are in the business of the spirit. We build physical structures and engage in financial transactions. We want our version of the cause of Christ to attract other people. When we are not attractive, people do not attend our church.

So, people go to church because of the edifices? Sounds pretty pagan to me. I thought it was about worshiping the Lord.

I was in OKC this weekend and I am just in awe of this building. It is so beautiful and unique. I just don't think I could see OKC tearing down another piece of its history for a generic development.

I can see it from my office at the Gazette.

It's one of my favorite buildings in all of OKC.

We live in Central Park just to the southwest. I tell people we live in Central Park and they have no idea what I’m talking about. I say right next to the Egg Church and they immediately know where I’m talking about. It’s got to be a top 5 most widely known building in Oklahoma City.

Yes, but who's Lord? We worship a Lord who is appealing and attractive to us. The Southern Baptist version of the Lord who approved of slavery became non-appealing and the church moved away from Him. The Mormon lord who approved of polygamy became less appealing and most of the church moved away.

Yes, but who's Lord? We worship a Lord who is appealing and attractive to us. The Southern Baptist version of the Lord who approved of slavery became non-appealing and the church moved away from Him. The Mormon lord who approved of polygamy became less appealing and most of the church moved away.

This is precisely whats so hilarious about dogma and why excluding or killing another person based on what they believe is abhorrent.

Yes, but who's Lord? We worship a Lord who is appealing and attractive to us. The Southern Baptist version of the Lord who approved of slavery became non-appealing and the church moved away from Him. The Mormon lord who approved of polygamy became less appealing and most of the church moved away.

So, are you saying Christ is fluid and stands for whatever society at the time wants to believe he is? That a Christian church should continuously change its "truth" to fit whatever contemporary society says they would like it to be and are most entertained by?

If that is the feeling about faith, why should we put much stock in human history and value things like this church.... let's just go with whatever the current people want and value..... Lots of bars, restaurants, Starbucks, cbd, front door parking, and cheap rent. Who needs reminders of historically significant elements of society or what was thought to be significant or beautiful at one time.

:ot:

Yes, but who's Lord? We worship a Lord who is appealing and attractive to us. The Southern Baptist version of the Lord who approved of slavery became non-appealing and the church moved away from Him. The Mormon lord who approved of polygamy became less appealing and most of the church moved away.

15226

So, are you saying Christ is fluid and stands for whatever society at the time wants to believe he is? That a Christian church should continuously change its "truth" to fit whatever contemporary society says they would like it to be and are most entertained by?

If that is the feeling about faith, why should we put much stock in human history and value things like this church.... let's just go with whatever the current people want and value..... Lots of bars, restaurants, Starbucks, cbd, front door parking, and cheap rent. Who needs reminders of historically significant elements of society or what was thought to be significant or beautiful at one time.

Off topic yeah, but a quite reply:

These things are things that man has built. The Lord didn't make Catholic and Protestant, man did. The Lord didn't make Baptist and Methodist and Lutheran, etc....man did. We created things to gather people of like minds together, and HOPEFULLY still works towards the same goals but in our own ways. So did the Lord change? No. But as Rover said, The Church often does change and adapt to stay relevant. I mean we use electricity, air conditioners, copiers, computers, pens, and TVs, and organs, drums, and ......... dont we? We apparently decided that adapting at some level was ok and that it didn't detract from what the whole point was.

While it's not my thing, if someone that goes to a megachurch needs that Starbucks to get them there, but then they connect to the Word and do good in the world, then i'm all for it. It's not a contest of us vs. them. You don't invite someone to church because you want to steal them from the other church next door....you're on the same side remember. It's like stealing your own team member. So if they do leave your building, it might be a hit for your own congregation, but in the grand scheme, it's only a loss if they turn away from The Lord.

So in terms of First of OKC, these are congregational issues that have been long running and are widespread across the U.S. in terms of traditional churches. The fight to stay relevant is a big one. If this wasn't such an iconic structure, we wouldn't be having this conversation. So the folks in this thread have also already decided that their opinions about the building are more important than whether or not a congregation survives. And to me, that's just as sad as the possibility of an iconic structure being lost.

Gosh. I don't interpret anyone on this thread not caring about whether the congregation survives. I think the most harsh opinion would be that the market is changing and they are not adapting in a manner that allows growth (or even survival). I don't like it, but it seems fair.

Speaking as someone that's involved in church leadership, Pete, that comment may be overall true but the solutions are far more complicated that that makes it sound. Churches are living things that require cooperation among all ages. You will see the older folks in the more traditional churches that are stereo typically less willing to adjust. Thankfully, we dont have that problem in our congregation. But it's always a struggle because those older folks are typically the elders and control what the church does. In most of those failed churches, either demographics changed where there just aren't younger folks there any longer or the leaders failed to adjust to attract/keep them. With OKC, you saw both problems.

With ANY church, you need to attract younger families to keep the church alive. Those people are the future of the church just like when those elders were the younger folks. You need things for the younger folks to do together...support structure. You need CHILD CARE for activities. Whether you're traditional or contemporary, same things apply.

It's super easy to simply say 'they didn't adjust so they deserve to close', but that's very not fair to any church.

This.

I was there during the last minor schism. I wasn't going to get into it as Pete has put out a fairly black and white perspective that at its core is true. However, there were larger issues at play here. From day one the church was beset with the tragic death of its founder. There are several multiples of factors here that have caused people to leave and have stifled growth. Demographics are huge but internal issues, decisions, and personalities are at play here too. I actually left regular active attendance when Don Alexander Jr. retired. That was the initial motivating factor for me.

Churches are living organisms as you attest. They evolve or devolve due to multitudes of factors.

'm curious that, if saved, what could be done with this property and what creative ideas some of you may have for it.

Let's say the building is saved but no longer houses the congregation. You're tasked with developing the entire property and incorporating a new purpose for the church building. What plans do you propose?

It could be like the Wheeler District where the larger un- or under-developed property is used for housing and other uses then the main buildings (airport terminal and hanger vs. sanctuary and theater) are used for bar/restaurant/museum/event space.

There is tons of property to be developed without touching the main structures. And very different from the Gold Dome which is basically just a building and a bit of land.

That property surrounding First Christian is beautiful and almost perfectly located. It could support the main buildings instead of that portion being expected to cash flow on its own.

Perhaps somebody should contact the LifeChurch people and see if they could set up a group there and keep it functioning as a church.

'm curious that, if saved, what could be done with this property and what creative ideas some of you may have for it.

Let's say the building is saved but no longer houses the congregation. You're tasked with developing the entire property and incorporating a new purpose for the church building. What plans do you propose?

There are a lot of cool examples of re-purposed churches. It seems housing is common with smaller churches. Larger ones are often turned into restaurants, bars, and retail, like a book store. I haven't been inside it, but it looks like the sanctuary is very large, which would allow for all kinds of concepts, including just a really unique event center. With its large atrium, it could be built out for multiple levels as well.

As Pete pointed out, it could be a sort of "value add" community center as part of a larger, integrated residential development like wheeler.

Here is a piece I found showing some examples:

11 New Uses for Old Churches (http://mentalfloss.com/article/29873/11-new-uses-old-churches)

The "entrepreneurial center" is kind of cool and could generate cash flow a developer... That book store looks pretty bad ass, as well.

Not really advocating for any of these ideas for this church, but thought the examples would be helpful.

Historic Preservation Commission passed the historic landmark overlay

Historic Preservation Commission passed the historic landmark overlay

Reminder what they passed is just a resolution to start the process.

Ultimately, the city council will need 7 of 9 positive votes for it to pass officially (7 of 9 because the church has formally protested, rather than a simple majority).

It does create a 6-month stay where they can't demolish or make significant alterations.

sorry I should have been clearer, I did see that it was a resolution and that it would be a 180+ day process

I think there is a charter school or something in the eastern part of the church property that used to be their youth center and softball field. Is this still part of the church land or was it sold?

There are a lot of cool examples of re-purposed churches. It seems housing is common with smaller churches. Larger ones are often turned into restaurants, bars, and retail, like a book store. I haven't been inside it, but it looks like the sanctuary is very large, which would allow for all kinds of concepts, including just a really unique event center. With its large atrium, it could be built out for multiple levels as well.

As Pete pointed out, it could be a sort of "value add" community center as part of a larger, integrated residential development like wheeler.

Here is a piece I found showing some examples:

11 New Uses for Old Churches (http://mentalfloss.com/article/29873/11-new-uses-old-churches)

The "entrepreneurial center" is kind of cool and could generate cash flow a developer... That book store looks pretty bad ass, as well.

Not really advocating for any of these ideas for this church, but thought the examples would be helpful.

55+ housing on the expanse of vacant land. Use the church as a senior center and clubhouse for the development.

Asbestos abatement is going to be big and expensive for whatever group purchases the place. So deep pockets are a requirement (if it's not dozed) and probably why it's still not sold. It's been 3 years, so obviously there's something there that is keeping people away. It's not like it's magically went on the market 3 months ago. We, in the DoC denomination, have been hearing about the place being for sale and getting ready to "close" for years but it keeps hanging on. We've got a vested interest since our regional office is on the land.....

^

Asbestos is only a problem if it is disturbed and if they plan to keep what is there, that should not be a big issue.

Negatives: Asbestos (can be encapsulated), energy inefficiency, perhaps inefficient interior layout.
Positives: Iconic design, historical designation, great location, room to expand to the N and E.

Missing anything?

Asbestos abatement is going to be big and expensive for whatever group purchases the place. So deep pockets are a requirement (if it's not dozed) and probably why it's still not sold. It's been 3 years, so obviously there's something there that is keeping people away. It's not like it's magically went on the market 3 months ago. We, in the DoC denomination, have been hearing about the place being for sale and getting ready to "close" for years but it keeps hanging on. We've got a vested interest since our regional office is on the land.....


Asbestos abatement will be required prior to demolition if that is the eventual outcome. So, it really is a nonissue. And as others said...if it can be encapsulated where it cannot become airborne, then it can remain. However, that does create a liability issue, and thus most owners would prefer to abate. But regardless...tearing the place down will require the same abatement of the asbestos before demo as abatement for restoration of the structure.

I think there is a charter school or something in the eastern part of the church property that used to be their youth center and softball field. Is this still part of the church land or was it sold?

Trinity School: https://www.trinityschoolokc.org Not sure who owns what, land-wise.

Trinity School: https://www.trinityschoolokc.org Not sure who owns what, land-wise.

The church owns all that property.

In this regard, the foresight that Crossings had back in the mid-90s was pretty amazing. Others have followed suit and have thrived as Pete said.

https://crossings.church/about/history

Crossings is celebrating their 60th anniversary this year. And one of the things pastor Marty Grubbs said this past Sunday is churches don’t fail because people leave, they fail because the people that stay want to remain comfortable. They close because of a failed transition plan and failed vision, which pretty much nails it.

That's pretty easy to say when you're physically sitting where Crossings is. Yes, First of OKC could have picked up and moved to another part of town and that may have helped keep the congregation going, but I'll say this. Had they done that, it would have been in the early 90s. And the place probably would have been dozed then without a second though since we weren't all as preservation minded as we are now. That also means that church wouldn't have served the role it did in the bombing.

Sometimes that physical location has meaning and purpose. Crossings, being so far out, wouldn't have had (and didn't) the same role. Now before you get all bent out of shape, no First didn't do anything any more than Crossings didn't do anything in relation to the bombing. First just happen to be in the right place at the right time. But my larger point is, Crossings (and admittedly, my own church), physically moved to stay relevant. But we didn't have iconic structures. So again, would you be as worried about the survival of First's congregation if it wasn't for the building? Did you care about what building Crossings moved out of?

It's super easy to make such a blanket statement as the Crossing minister did when you're sitting in the cozy spot they are....and have been for so long. That's great for them, and i hope they continue to prosper. But it's a reductive statement to the complications that smaller congregations face. Not everyone can afford to pick up and move. Not everyone has the capital to invest in materials to convert to a contemporary service. It's a FAAAAAR more complex thing than that statement makes it sound like.

So if you're blaming all of First's problems on that, again, i'll say that's a huge oversimplification.

I'm not a regular church-goer, haven't been for decades, am probably kind of agnostic-ish right now anyway, and my interest in it is purely for the building. But this discussion and situation are interesting to me because my old church is Village Christian Church, another DoC church with an aging and shrinking population, with a fairly frequent pastor turnover, that is also in an iconic building, might be some lessons to be learned by my old church from this...

There are dozens of churches built in the '50s and '60s in OKC that all are facing big challenges.

And I will restate: Regardless of the reasons for these huge slides in membership, they have been consistently happening in these churches for decades and I don't have sympathy for the claim of "now we're in a huge bind and have to sell whoever will buy it" when these trends have been happening for 30, 40 or even 50 years.

There are dozens of churches built in the '50s and '60s in OKC that all are facing big challenges.

And I will restate: Regardless of the reasons for these huge slides in membership, they have been consistently happening in these churches for decades and I don't have sympathy for the claim of "now we're in a huge bind and have to sell whoever will buy it" when these trends have been happening for 30, 40 or even 50 years.

Totally agree, but not all of them are in historic MCM buildings like FCC and VCC, that's what my concern is. If another standard church building gets sold and torn down/remodeled/re-purposed (like the one on NW 30th/May that will be the Dental Depot HQ and has lost its steeple), it's not quite as huge a deal as an iconic building having the same done to it.

^

I was addressing First Christian specifically because they are caretakers of important structures.

Most churches could be demolished without many people caring, and I suspect we are going to start seeing that with these scores of huge churches with huge parking lots that were built in what were then growing suburban areas and now have tiny congregations.

The are *everywhere* in OKC and I worry about what is going to become of just the property in general, if not the buildings in particular. It's not dissimilar to all the strip centers in the same areas that all once had grocery stores and TG&Y's and are now filled with bingo halls and flea markets.

^^^

totally agree with this. First Christian is a unique situation. Other than the dome shape, it's nothing like the gold dome because the gold dome is a kit building. I have seen at least 3 others exactly like it around the country (Trinidad, CO, San Marcos, TX and one other place that escapes me now. First Christian is totally and completely unique. There is nothing else remotely like it anywhere. It also has the large acreage around it.

There are dozens of churches built in the '50s and '60s in OKC that all are facing big challenges.

And I will restate: Regardless of the reasons for these huge slides in membership, they have been consistently happening in these churches for decades and I don't have sympathy for the claim of "now we're in a huge bind and have to sell whoever will buy it" when these trends have been happening for 30, 40 or even 50 years.

Also easy to say when you're not the one holding the mortgage. If the city feels like this is important enough to keep, then they can bid to buy it. But i'm not willing to just jump on the bandwagon that we have to take away First's right of ownership decision making just because we dont like who might buy it. That's a dangerous slippery slope. It's also not like it just went on the market. Why now at 3 years later do we suddenly care? Where were all these people 3 years ago? Where was your own concern 3 years ago?

If it gets historic preservation status, then we also need to assist the owners vacate if they can no longer afford it. Otherwise, you'll see it fall into disrepair and it will be in really bad shape. 20-30 congregants cannot keep that place going indefinitely. So what's the solution there rather than just complain when it doesnt go the way you want it to?

Also easy to say when you're not the one holding the mortgage. If the city feels like this is important enough to keep, then they can bid to buy it.

That's not the way it works and there is a process in place that is being followed.

Also easy to say when you're not the one holding the mortgage. If the city feels like this is important enough to keep, then they can bid to buy it. But i'm not willing to just jump on the bandwagon that we have to take away First's right of ownership decision making just because we dont like who might buy it. That's a dangerous slippery slope. It's also not like it just went on the market. Why now at 3 years later do we suddenly care? Where were all these people 3 years ago? Where was your own concern 3 years ago?

If it gets historic preservation status, then we also need to assist the owners vacate if they can no longer afford it. Otherwise, you'll see it fall into disrepair and it will be in really bad shape. 20-30 congregants cannot keep that place going indefinitely. So what's the solution there rather than just complain when it doesnt go the way you want it to?

LOL This thread dates back over 3 years and preservation of the dome, at a minimum, was brought up. The urgency started when the old Founders Bank was demolished almost overnight, before any opposition could be organized.

Also, literally speaking, I'm not sure there is a mortgage. At one time, this was a very well funded church. The maintenance of all that acreage is likely expensive, though.

There is not a mortgage. There actually is (was) a Muir-million dollar endowment. I would presume that the endowment itself is slowly being depleted and potentially threatening other functional commitments such as salaries for the staff to continue their mission.

In essence, the endowment and stewardship is what has prevented this from coming to a head 20 years ago.

You could make an argument that the church has been a good steward of the property and the continued donations has prevented the facility from being sold some time ago.

I tend to look at this sort of like when the Thunder left Seattle. Some people may have talked about it. But until there was a legit threat on the table, it wasn't important enough for anyone to do anything. Then the legal wrangling started for people to try to insert their opinions on the matter, trying to curtail the decisions of the actual owner.

Again, i'm 100000% in support of trying to keep the place intact. I'm on the preservation side. But im also NOT on the side of telling a property owner what they can do with something they've owned for 60 years. If it's important enough, then we'll have something/someone step up to make it happen.

And mortgage or not, that point on the endowment and contributions net the same end result. The size of the congregation can no longer properly support the needs of the facility any longer. I know some of you feel like I'm not on your side. That's not the case. I just don't care for the approach being taken. I'm putting myself in the church's shoes and trying to think about how this feels from the inside, partly because I'm from a DoC church. And it feels very soap-boxy lacking practical solution.

I think there are times that an owner doesn't fully understand or has forgotten what they own means in a more general sense. I would guaranty you that there are people in that church who have no idea what a unique building they have worshipped in and have never ventured into the maze of tunnels under it for it's one-of-a-kind (apparently original but now retrofitted) cooling system, or have any idea they were once full of cold-war civil defense supplies for the Soviet attack.

In your words, I tend to look at this as going to the home of an elderly person and seeing it is full of valuable antiques, paintings and collections but the elderly person just thinks of it as his/her house. I'm sure the remaining members have an idea of what they have but don't consciously realize there is possibly nothing else in the world like it.