Investigate both options befor making a final decision.

Actually, I’m in favor of my own 2B – remove the current FH/REE building, and replace with a new building with a significantly larger footprint . And purchase adjacent land to develop parking.  But. before any action, we need to know the costs of alternaatives, the allowances of zoning limitations, etc.  If significant investigation makes it clear that 2B isn’t feeasible, I’m in favor of 2A. But, I hope we don’t get caught in a frenzy for either/any options.  We are miles away from having enough information to make an informed decision.

Although I love the character, ambience, and history of our building, I can see that the current and likely future essential physical needs may be more burdensome than this congregation can handle.  I do think, however, that the strong will and resourcefulness of those long-time members could overcome and probably solve the negative issues presented.  

As much as I understand the desire for a binary answer, the real answer, of course, is “it depends”.  1) I am not opposed to moving to a wonderful new building in a great location that comes at a price we could reasonably afford.  I am skeptical that there is (or could be) such a thing.  I know it will cost a lot to make improvements we need to make to the existing space.  Will it cost more than new space?  That is not clear to me but I think it would need to be clear in order for me to vote for “new”.  2) Assuming that we could realize such a thing, when would that be?  I have to think that it would be several years.  Even if we want to go that direction, I don’t see how we can ignore some of these pressing maintenance items for several years.  So, even if we chose to move, it really isn’t a question of “invest in old, or invest in new”; rather, it is a question of “how much to invest in old given that we might move (if we can, when we can).  Bottom line:  I think I would have to understand the full costs and consequences of moving forward in both directions in order to choose one over the other.  You don’t allow the option of selecting both answers, so I arbitrarily picked “invest in old” because we *will* do that.  But that doesn’t mean I am opposed to “invest in new”. Even if we renovate or rebuild a fully accessible building on the exact location, we are landlocked. We still do not have space for parking. That in and of itself defeats folks before they ever walk in our doors – meaning they don’t know where to park their cars. For folks with mobility challenges, how is that accommodating and welcoming to  them? Our church home must support and enhance our mission. 

Even though I very much like our church building I think it is time to move on.
Maybe necessary renovations that are crucial to keep the community safe like replacing the elevate with a newer addition. (as Tim points out in his presentation). It will give us time to search around our wider community for grounds or a more modern church building.
I have been the facilities care taker for many years and understand the struggle of up-keeping it. 

For UUCUC to grow (in membership, but primarily in realizing its mission), a new building is warranted. We will be better able to anticipate costs for relocation than we can possibly predict costs for renovation, which I imagine would be beyond our means. 

I am in favor of tearing down the east wing and rebuilding that end of the building, possibly putting a parking garage on the basement floor and having at least a 3 story building complete with a good sized elevator.  We should also be prepared to buy out landowners to the east (Bruno Law Offices) and maybe the houses behind the church on High street. I am kinda hung between the 2 choices, so I can go either way.

I appreciate the BOT’s reaching out about this difficult question.  It is impossible to select one response (although I did so because the survey required it.)   I say this for a few reasons.

One can’t gauge the relative merits of staying or moving without knowing what a move to a new location would entail, financially & in ease of access.  A location several miles outside of CU would prevent members/friends/visitors from taking public transportation or biking to church.  It would also create challenges in serving populations in need – unhoused &  immigrant families for example.  

How many millions of dollars would purchasing or building a new church cost us?
If we are willing to spend millions on a new church building, why not consider investing those millions in renovating/remodeling our current space to better suit our needs?  We have space to the south & east of our current building.   We should think boldly about changes we could make to our existing structure, redoing the entire RE Wing or rethinking the south & east entrances altogether, for example.  Many more bold ideas exist.

Given the number of churches currently on the market I question our ability to sell our church for the price at which it is appraised.  It would be helpful to solicit input from someone who understands the current real estate market locally.  Dave Barr might know someone perhaps.  That information is central to a decision to move.

Finally, given our current transitions to new ministerial leadership & post COVID participation of congregants, it would not be prudent to tackle a significant change such as a move or purchase of a new building.  Our new minister should be instrumental in that decision & she will need some experience with us before she would have an informed position on the question.

I support investing in our building at 309 W. Green where we currently are & will likely remain for some years.  We experienced the cost of deferred maintenance during our last renovation in the early 1980s.  Let’s not make that same mistake.  With some creative thinking I believe investment of capital dollars could lead to a more serviceable building at 309 W. Green.   

Having said all that, I am not opposed to considering a move but additional information would need to be provided to convince me it is the right choice for us at this juncture.   Thank you.

I can see good and not so good in both options. A big consideration is how the place where we meet accommodates those who want to meet there AND the community outside our doors that we want to serve.  But, please replace the elevette now!  

I could support either option, but suggest as the more cost effective building new.  The only UNACCEPTABLE course is doing nothing.  If there were a national contest to select the UU church most determined to not receive bequests, UUCUC would win.  We discard older members when they encounter mobility issues, just when they are drafting the final copy of their will.

I feel it is very misleading to present these two polarizing options without providing any sort of financial estimates to support a fair comparison.  That being said, regardless of cost comparisons, I strongly oppose any suggestion of relocating our church home. 

As homeowner of a 100-yr-old brick house I understand the maintenance required to sustain our home as a comfortable, livable structure.  We would never consider abandoning our house simply because it needs routine maintenance or improvement.  I believe that as stewards of our historic church building, we have a responsibility to repair the structure as needed.  If the roof has a leak, let’s fix it.  If it needs to be entirely replaced, find a way to do that.  If we need to improve accessibility so that all people can share in the joy of being in our beautiful sanctuary, then I believe we should spend the money to make that improvement.  Under no circumstance do I believe it makes sense to start over with a new location just because we are faced with challenges.  It’s always good to assess the situation and prioritize needs, but it does not make sense financially or emotionally to abandon what we’ve already built and start over. 

It is absolutely possible to make improvements to our existing church structure to bring the building up to date and add the features that we believe are important.  One example of success has been installing an AV system that allows us to greatly improve accessibility and flexibility to our entire community both near and far.  We identified a need, we invested in a solution, and to my knowledge it has been a success.  We should continue making improvements as the needs arise, rather than pausing to ask ourselves “but what if we were to move in 5/10/15 years…”. 

Some might say that the church is not about the building but rather about the community.  I don’t think it’s that simple, and for me the building has a tremendous influence on my churchgoing experience.  I want to experience church in a space that inspires me.  For me the historical aspects of our old stone building, the rich woodwork, the windows, the acoustics, and other details are very important.  If I were a new member, I would be very alarmed to be presented with the notion that the church may be moving. 

I strongly oppose relocating our church.  I feel the questions in this survey are misleading, given that there is not adequate financial information provided to aid in making a fair comparison.  This will result in various interpretations and strong opinions on both sides of the issue.  I find it unfortunate to be entering this debate at the same time that our new minister is arriving, because I’d prefer that she enter this relationship in an atmosphere of unity and support.  Regardless of survey results, I urge leaders to pursue needed improvements and maintenance to our existing building now rather than deferring and allowing the structure to deteriorate. 

I know many wish to continue to use the current building, however, it is the people that make UUCUC the place I want to be. In my mind the upgrades to the current space are too expensive for compared to the rewards. Parking?  What will become of the fellowship hall?  That whole section of the building has never seemed to match the architecture of the old part, nor has it met our needs.

Consider *******’s outside the box suggestion.  Or using part of the new church as a B&B, the old church as a reception, music hall and I’m sure others could have further suggestions.
I love our church home, but I can’t see it meeting our needs going forward. I strongly believe that we should be a congregation in our current historic 100 year old building, and our mid-century, modern addition. The historic building and physical location is a strong draw for our family, and is a strong presence in the neighborhood.
I believe that upgrading our lift is a very straightforward process based on the quotes that we have received and will encourage us to do that as a wish list campaign immediately. Similarly, our air conditioning in the sanctuary can be upgraded with similar reasonable which list costs.
I believe that parking for an urban church of our type is not an issue with the neighborhood lot partnerships we have, and I believe that if we need to go to two services, that has worked well in the past.  I think it’s backwards to decide first which path to take. If cost were out of the picture, I’d prefer to preserve the stone church and rebuild the RE wing, perhaps enlarging it. But of course cost is a major factor, and if the question were presented in this concrete way, my preference could be entirely different: For $5,000,000, we could bring the stone church up to standard and rebuild a 10,000 sq ft modern and substantial RE wing; or we could build a fully modern 30,000 sq ft church in a beautiful wooded setting.

My preference is also to remain centrally located, and not move to a suburban location, but that’s probably not entirely fair, since *I* am centrally located. I think moving could allow us to build to meet the needs of our current and future/growing congregation with an eye to our younger population – the future!  The most important items being access and welcoming of all people: right now not all people (especially people with disabilities) are allowed in the church or religious education, and that does not meet our mission.  Of those people who brave the antique elevette, they risk their safety during their time in the church because currently if their were an emergency where power was lost, there would be no way for them to exit the building quickly and safely from the second floor.  This is a major concern for the safety of our community.  We would love to serve children and youth with disabilities who use mobility aids in REE downstairs, but I would imagine that most parents would see the stairs and immediately dismiss us as an option.  We also serve a great number of older adults and want to be sensitive to their needs.  The most appropriate design for buildings right now is universal design, which allows everyone to access a building in and out – whether you walk, use a wheelchair, walker, or stroller.  We are growing and busting at the seams.  We have six classrooms of REE happening downstairs each Sunday and also need dedicated bathrooms! This is a large congregation that is growing. We need to be innovative and forward thinking, not continue to provide expensive band-aids that don’t really meet our needs at every turn in a historic building that continues to deteriorate.  The most important part of the church is the people and the mission not the location or the building. I think the downsides to a new space can be o er one more easily than the major expenses of renovation.  Many that I work with in the community know us by our work,  or by our building..  in fact many ask where we are located.  Think about the impact that moving has had inPeoria and Iowa . I think we should tear down the RE wing and rebuild it, larger and more accessible, and make necessary changes to the old stone building, perhaps reversing their roles (i.e. worship would be held in new space, fellowship in the old).  We’re an important part of that Urbana neighborhood and if we sold the church (assuming we even could) it’s hard to imagine that it would become anything other than a big student warehouse apartment building.   I understand the two options clearly, and think they state the key components of each option. I voted, but believe that a vote at this time, without data, is in unwise.  The unintended consequence could be division and polarization. I want us to preserve our history and building and invest in the core of the community. Too many churches leave the core of communities and move to more fringe locations that are less accessible to those without the ability to drive, and leave vacant building that become marginalized and underused further negatively impacting the community’s core neighborhoods. Urbana needs our presence to benefit those who have fewer resources and need more support and services.   I was part of a 40+ year old congregation elsewhere that moved to a new (rented) location approximately every 1.5 years, and grew in size with each move.

My opinion is that the congregation is the people, not the structure. Since our current location limits us from servicing more people (helping them find out that they are UUs and did not know it), then we should move and have a facility that allows us to both focus on our mission and allow us to grow.  If we stay at our current location, is there any chance we could offer to purchase the lot just behind the church (the property between the church and the law office?) … so we could expand our footprint? If we go, and we are not located on the bus line, could we make sure we provide some transportation via an accessible bus or van, like so many churches already do?  We should go together or not at all.
I love our church building, but I love our church members more.

I’m glad we are starting this conversation, and I really liked the some of the ideas that came up in the listening session I attended. Particularly, the idea that some of the needs our current building doesn’t meet (ie acting as a warming center, hosting immigrant families) could be met at a separate facility.  Leaving our beautiful church would involve transferring the current and significant replacement/repair liabilities to the new owner. My real choice is “it depends”. I chose move because I’m willing to move. I choose our mission over any building or history. People need us; they don’t need a pipe organ. I hope we can compare the cost of both options. I fear that our property isn’t worth enough to afford to move, but if moving is feasible and best supports the future, we should move. If staying is the most feasible option, we should stay and make these essential improvements ASAP.  We will never have everything we want in a building, but hopeful we will welcome all to our church home. Which ever way we go, some will be mad and grieving. We have to embrace our covenant, as well as our current and future members. Our current location not only has historical importance, but it allows us to be an integral part of the community. It is on a bus line and has bike access for those who do not drive. This is critical to maintaining our mission of inclusion.  Renovating existing structures typically allows for a more positive environmental impact, rather than using all new materials for a new structure. I also support two Sunday services or other innovative worship solutions (hybrid, Wednesday vespers, etc) so that our current sanctuary is large enough as attendance grows.  Our land between Green Street and Elm Street is highly valuable. I believe that we could sell the property to a developer to obtain funds toward the purchase of a new location and possible new construction. Rebuild an efficient building; convert Green Street lot to parking and move playground to High St. lot; seriously investigate Weaver parking lot use; keep open to buying close properties for sale Sadly, it appears  that even with major renovations , we will remain limited due to the lack of space to grow, leaving us with a much better but too small building snd parking lot. We could do things to decrease the congregation, but that probably would not be an acceptable option for most congregants.  test The current location is very beloved. I would love to see us invest and grow where we are.  The first question is rather narrow. There is another option not considered with renovating the current footprint: the newer 1960s structure could be completely changed/demolished/rebuilt to allow for a more accessible wing. We could plan further out for how we would design the space if the neighbors ever relocate and that lot is available. I disagree we need more parking. People need to be more considerate and not park there unless they have a direct need to do so. The library parking lot is available and free on the weekends as is several other lots nearby. Though I absolutely understand the wish to stay in our historical location, I believe that it is time to move. When I started attending the church—in the late 1990s—we had a similar vote and we chose to stay. Since that time the size of the sanctuary necessitated going to two services and the mold smell in the RE wing and the issue of the elevate have been constant and recurring problems.

Priority should be given to being on a bus line. We have a great bus system in this community and I think that could be figured out. The Peoria church has very nicely incorporated pieces of their old church into the new one and it seems that we could do the same. We cannot move further away from campus or contribute to urban sprawl. Our future is in our youth and young adults. If we do move, we should be closer to campus than we are now.

It would be deeply hypocritical to say we are good stewards of the environment and then go off to a location with a bigger parking lot and poor public transportation.

Doing the right thing is not always cheap or easy, and it would be tragic for UUCUC of all institutions to end up being complicit in the suburbanization which exacerbates inequality and climate change. I look forward to a future where our church remains in a walkable neighborhood close to campus.  We find physical limitations and issues with existing poor facility too much for us.  Would like to be active but are not due to overcrowding, too many stairs, musty smells, no ac in summer, parking, etc as summarized in presentation. Been thru several “old/new church” experiences. Hard to move on, but church will wither and die eventually if stays as is.  Get a move on, asap. Courage. Whatever we choose to do will be a million or more-dollar project. I like the old building and I know it is not convenient for many of our families. I squirm at the money to be spent and I want a space that gives everyone the comfort to belong. Starting at a new location has its merits but the historical location of this church is in my estimation irreplaceable. Building and adding to this site will be or could be a money pit.  How do we preserve history and keep expanding and thriving? Is that our million dollar question?  Without data I cannot make an informed decision