Re: 鈥�1926 church in Fairfield to be demolished for suites,鈥� March 16.
With respect, I proffer further thoughts:
鈥� A fine architectural, truly heritage, building (which I know from my own careful inspection is not in any way falling apart).
鈥� A building that has prominently adorned the streetscape of Fairfield for nearly a century.
To those who say: 鈥淒emolish,鈥� I say: 鈥淣ot so soon!鈥� This is far too quick a decision on such a prominent building.
I am very surprised to see a proposal to demolish granted in this manner and for the mayor to state that this is a 鈥減henomenal proposal鈥� (i.e., new, not preserved old) when a landmark building is being lost is nothing less than bizarre.
So many older buildings require an expertise to bring them back to modern economic use. With today鈥檚 out-of-control construction costs, older buildings with good bones and character have in fact latent value if you look hard enough.
There was more than one heritage developer at the offering table when this building was put up for sale 鈥� both were there to see new life for an old structure. The high bid took it.
Respectfully, demolition of this structure is a very poor decision. Custodianship of our city and buildings, I thought, was a civic responsibility for those who remain to follow.
These comments are not to suggest that the present owner can鈥檛 try to make a buck, but sadly to those concerned: You got this all wrong.
Chris Le Fevre
Victoria
