practicality. i'm all for making sure beautiful things stick around, but where is the line between making things look good and making things work? that whole form and function thing. there's a senior care facility in evanston that's an old hotel. it looks nice. it's right down the street from my workplace. the company wants to tear it down to build a brand new facility, one that's not a collection of hobbled together old buildings, that might, just might, be better suited to providing care. but there's this organization that wants to prevent the destruction and replacement with a modern facility. what are the possible solutions in my opinion?

• the organization, historical preservationists, provides a new location
• the organization takes on all responsibility for the current healthcare in the current building
• the organization tries to make the new facility look okay and not so out of place with the neighborhood, or the 20-30 story condos a couple blocks away.
• the organization backs down
• the health care facility does what it wants, in order to provide better services to its members

hmmm, which of those makes the most sense? who gains from preventing the construction of a new facility? some might argue future generations, that they'll be able to see a beautiful building from the 1930's. That no one wants to use. And who loses? Those who can't get the best care because they're in an old building. Hmmm, form or function?