Last night the architect Rodger Woods, who is retired from Woods Parker Architects in Calgary, (http://www.woodsparker.com/) spoke at St. Philip about the connection between church buildings and the community of faith that worships in those buildings.
Here are my notes from Rodger’s presentation:
************
Introduction:
Rodger currently worships at St. James Anglican Church in NW Calgary. He worked as an architect throughout Western Canada for 30-40 years. He is presently retired but still very active.
Presentation:
Done a couple of hundred churches in my career.
Why do we bother with church buildings?
In the first centuries of the Christian faith, church buildings didn’t exist and yet Christianity blossomed without them. The first church buildings were peoples’ homes. This worked out well because the homes were organized around a courtyard which typically had a fountain at the centre serving well for baptism.
Buildings have communicative value. Our building speaks to people on the street.
Our building also shapes the way we think about ourselves.
In Western Canada in church architecture there is an ethos that ugly is particularly spiritual. Evangelical churches are content with being amplified theatres focused on performance. Everything that is meaningful happens from the front and is projected out onto the observers in the congregation.
In liturgical churches, the building itself is the backdrop for the drama of the liturgy. So it is important to think about how the building and the liturgy fit together.
When we begin a church building project we are not interested in developing a shopping list. When you start a project you are making a long term commitment to how your church is going to operate. It is a great opportunity to do some strategic planning. Why are we here? What is the story we want our building to tell?
We need to start with a wide net and then narrow it down to a place where we can achieve a general consensus. If you don’t have an approval rate higher than 80% it is not going to get built. You need broad consensus about the vision. The process has to develop consensus.
You need to smoke out veto holders. Find out who the people are who consider that any exercise to change the building is the consequence of “them” “Them” is the people who have joined the church since I joined this church and who want to change “my” church. They should find some other church, rather than messing with mine.
Any kind of church development project is a process like a funnel.
Every church I have ever worked with has considered itself to be a private club for their benefit of its members.
Finance – Operating budget and capital budgets are two separate things. You cannot relate them closely. In terms of operating budgets, churches should never go over tree times the annual budget for a capital expenditure. If you go over three times your operating budget you are moving into danger territory.
In new projects it is preferable to develop a new building that can be added to in the future, rather than trying to do to much at the outset.
Develop a master plan and develop incrementally. When a congregation carries a lot of debt debt load the church does not have a lot of curb appeal. When newcomers see that every person in the congregation owes $50,000.00 it is not very appealing.
There is resistance in episcopally governed churches to giving to capital projects, because someone else is going to control the building.
I am a great believer in professional fundraisers. They work well. It seems counter-intuitive to think of paying a consultant to encourage your own people to give money. But good fundraisers are helpful in providing a good assessment of what kind of capacity the congregation has for giving. In every congregation different people have different capacities for giving. The anonymity of a hired person, helps people open up providing greater accuracy in determining how much people are likely to give.
There is an important relationship between liturgy and architecture.
I want to focus on a recent project I have been working on with St. Michael’s Roman Catholic Community in Calgary (http://www.saintmichael.ca/main/home.php?page_id=1) This church illustrates the strength of coordinating liturgy and design. Since Vatican II Roman Catholics have done the best job of thinking about the relationship between church structure and theology. Anglicans need to give more thought to this.
What story is our building telling? How does the church structure communicate or fail to communicate the Gospel?
The design of St. Michael’s is linear – the story we are telling has a beginning and an end. Coming to the church is a process of coming from the outside and becoming associated with a worshiping community and entering into a space in which worship takes place.
Churches should be transparent. When you drive by you should be able to see that something is going on there. A lot of retail studies indicate that people are reluctant to enter spaces that they don’t already understand visually. If they can’t get information before they enter the door, they are unlikely to enter.
By the time you get to the door you should be able to see all the way to the altar.
There is a hierarchy of spaces. You come from the street meeting people in a plaza space, then entering an inside area which further consolidates the community, providing a gathering space.
When you enter the actual church at St. Michael’s, the first thing you see is the baptistry. Baptism is the rite of initiation into the church. Every time you enter or leave the worship space, you have to pass by the baptistry.
The baptistry is a pool big enough for immersion of an adult. It has an entry stair and an exit stair. You come in one side and exit on the other side of the water. It is cruciform in shape with water always flowing, always bubbling, and overflowing.
Baptism typically takes place on Saturday night of the Easter vigil. A fire is lit outside church, candles are processed in. Candidates for baptism come in from the outside. They go down into the water to identify with Jesus in his death, they come up out the other side to identify with the resurrection and then they are anointed with oil. Every time they enter or leave the church they pass by the baptistry that reminds them of the grace that brought them into this living relationship with God and the community that embodies this relationship.
The worship space itself has a cross shape in the ceiling. The altar is at the cross point because the altar is the point of the room. But the seating is around the table because worship is not an action you do alone. From every seat in the church you can see two thirds of the faces.
The church has a columbarium that embodies the reality that the church is not just the living who attend but also the deceased who await the resurrection.
Kitchens and food services are really important. The kitchen is a pivot that other things work around. The demand for small food services events is more important than large service events. We work to develop more intimate eating spaces rather than the large gathering area. We have concentrated on making small food service events more comfortable. If you want a congregation-wide lunch, then rent a larger hall.
Existing space can often be reconstituted and used in different ways. So you build something radically new incorporating existing space.
A designer has to know a congregation or he cannot serve the congregation well.
The church has no organ. Funerals occasionally have a choir led by a keyboard.
St. Michael’s Roman Catholic Church Calgary is a church on the move. Their church is oriented around homes and hospitality.
I like church buildings that raise questions.
Pews are very inefficient seating. The building code says every seat is 19 inches. When you have chairs you get a person in each seat. Pews are an inefficient use of space.
The Eucharist is not an individual event.
I believe liturgical churches are going to become increasingly important because my experience with young people is that more and more they are less interested in cause and effect propositional truth. They receive information in different ways.
The liturgy is the gospel story acted out in ways that the younger generations can receive. The liturgy also connects with history. It is rooted in tradition but also creates a space for active involvement of all participants in the present.
People need to hear each other in worship.
The more you can keep on the same level the better off you are. Develop multiple uses for the same space on the same level rather than having multiple levels.
The building is a back drop for what is happening. If nothing is happening the building will not make it happen. But the building can also be a hindrance to what is happening and can get in the way of communicating what we want to say.
15 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 25, 2012 at 7:34 am
kimgye
“Churches should be transparent. When you drive by you should be able to see that something is going on there. A lot of retail studies indicate that people are reluctant to enter spaces that they don’t already understand visually. If they can’t get information before they enter the door, they are unlikely to enter.”
I liked this point a lot. Also the seating idea of being around a table, where you can see two thirds of the faces. Being pretty much unaware of my fellow parishioners always bothers me on Sundays. I recognize most of them by the back of their heads!
“There is resistance in Episcopally governed churches to giving to capital projects, because someone else is going to control the building.”
I have to admit that this is a huge stumbling block for me. I would say that an important step would be someone explaining why people should buy into the project in spite of this fact.
I enjoyed this post Christopher. Kind of exciting to hear about people who have gotten together and created a relevant community worship space.
April 25, 2012 at 1:29 pm
jaqueline
I disagree strongly about Mr Woods seating preferences… I don’t mind those ideas presented as an option subject to how a church functions/ feels, but I did not appreciate those options presented as the ideal rule. There are good arguments for pews and NOT seeing everyone’s face. I HATE the though that a crowd could potentially see my face ALL the time. And being a person who is hyper aware I do not find the potential for my attention to be distracted by the possibility of people- watching a comfortable prospect. Mr Woods suggested that dislike of seeing faces automatically means an individualistic approach to worship. I would suggest that that is jumping from one extreme to another.
I really appreciated that Mr Woods emphasised that a building needs to fit the people not the other way around and that a vision needs to be encouraged. When he was talking about the generalities of architecture I found the talk helpful and encouraging, When the talk focused on one design… I found it lost it’s relevance.
I was disappointed at the dimissal of our building..particularly when some of the best and most unique windows in any church building were showing at their glory last night. And does Mr Woods know it was meant to be a Sunday School building and that considering, a lot of love happens to have been put into a little building that was not meant to be a grand thing in the first place. The care of the quality of the wood cross, the gorgeous wood above and yes those doors and pews, lovingly carved; the graceful arches of the roof and ceiling,The Morrows absolutely got it when they praised the form and it’s boat-like qualities.
Architects are still people and sometimes they, like the rest of we mortals also miss what does not fit with their own particular vision. Not everyone goes in for grand utilitarian massive statements.
As I stood up to leave after your prayer and thanks for the generations my hand landed on the top of the pew before me and I was suddenly moved. My hand dwelt on the wood, the smoothness and wondered, whose hands have rested here before, whose life has shaped, has worn into warmth the wood of these very pews that many dismiss as inefficient?
April 25, 2012 at 4:39 pm
kimgye
Well, now I really wish I had been there!
I don’t consider myself a people watcher per say. I have what I guess is a normal amount of self conscious feelings about my appearance too, but I want to be in relationship with my friends. I base relationship on face to face meetings such as a family dinner, or speaking to a group of people so they can see me. Seeing another’s face is helpful to me in getting a sense of who they are. Too be known I guess is what I mean. I can accept that for some people, anonymity is more comfortable, but wonder what most of us would choose if we could create a worship place today.
At Brentwood Anglican Church, I believe the design was actually an inverted boat. When we sat in the pews, they were facing each other across the main isle. It meant looking to your left or right to see the Rector depending on which side of the “boat” you were seated, so not perfect.
I would also like the functionality of chairs, so you could use the space differently as the occasion demanded it. To me, a more multi-use would appeal to more of the community around us and put more of the emphasis of the word “Church” on the people and our energy and less on the building itself. I would want “Church” to be about what happens when we gather. I think too much emphasis over the millennium has been on property, buildings and wealth, which has always smacked of pride to me IMHO. Of course, I am also happy to be just one voice here. I like that someone brought this subject and meeting forward. Good idea
April 25, 2012 at 5:01 pm
jaqueline
the point I brought up last night is that some of us are on the broad side of width and pews are a good solution for multiple sizes of people. :-). They are too, very child friendly, chairs tend not to be…
April 25, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Rob
AS usual we have ones persons views and we are supposed to accept it because he is a professional. The views are interesting but not the final word.
We are a liturgical church and have history that is our backbone and purpose which means we can adept but not to throw out what works.
Pews to my mind if available as an option are much more functional and can be comfortable with minimal expense. They allow us to kneel while worshiping , allow our children to lean and craw under and on the pew itself, we can push bums together to sqweeze more folks together and they adapt to our size. I do not need to see everybody, its my worship space with the Lord and pews do not make noise when we stand up and sit numerous times.
Chairs are umcomfortable depending on size, structure
Tale a poll of the changes churches and see if they really wanted that. We should make do with what we have and we did have 230+ people every service years ago, it worked while now we only have 130 every service.
Our local city has rules as to what we cannot grow on
April 25, 2012 at 5:51 pm
jaqueline
as I am pottering around I am thinking about this and I think of all the times people need to or want to get up and move around in church and the kids and all that and I realise chairs too are difficult to navigate in and out of…in a pew, you just have to get past other peoples’ legs, not the legs of the chairs as well. and then there is the constant movement of the chairs and shifting….
April 25, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Rob
As to Brentwood chapel, it is a lovely place and designed I thought as the churches in England for Choral events but in my later years , ones neck becomes a bit stiff turning to hear the rector. I guess for kim, he can never sleep during the sermon as more of us would see him,. SMILE..
Our church is multi-functional, work with what you have , do not tear it aprat for the limited times it is used a such.
Ask the people who meet in halls how much they enjoy moving chairs and tables. When you arrive at a church it has to have a presence and looking like the local receration hall , to my mind is not a Wow…
April 25, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Rob
As to funding, smoke and mirrors. If we already have a deficit then that is our priority and how we can move folks to want to contribute to this chucrhc, place, building , grass, whatever we call it. To now talk about a new fund for professional fund raising means you still have to move the same folks to go beyond and share a vision.
Conflicting priorities…. If the current building requires so much repairs vs a new one than you have to truly be upfront and explain.
Can we grow beyond our current 130- 170 attendees …
April 25, 2012 at 5:33 pm
Rob
My muse and shares for the day
April 25, 2012 at 9:59 pm
kimgye
My question is can we meet people where they are in our present mode of doing church? If we are happy to carry on as a club that just happens to welcome people to join it, are we not simply going to follow the way of all the other Anglican churches in Canada? What are we really willing to change, if anything. Can someone who is not a Christian feel inspired to walk through our doors in their own spiritual journey? Would they choose us?
April 25, 2012 at 11:41 pm
jaqueline
the other thing that was interesting is this idea that glass doors or windows would inspire people to come on in…it’s more transparent…Well for who? you drive by glass- faced churches and you can’t see in!! It’s all reflection!! Only if you come up close can you see in ….or if it is night time ( ie the Lutheran Church on Cedar Hill ).Now maybe this is more of my own quirks..but this glass door transparency thing seems like it makes US the club believe we are being more open…but honestly to non- churchgoers it probably strikes them as anything but , more like, if they can see in: look at us all jolly in this club. Geez we don’t even have a little poster board outside our church so people have chance to know what we do inside and it’s ooooohhh cool, glass !! Good grief, we don’t even have an ad in the Time Colonist Sunday Service classifieds !~!
April 26, 2012 at 3:03 pm
Rob
Each of us has a responsibility to bring that person into our church directly , by adds , by facebook by utube by whatever it takes. Do not blame the building and far are we a club as a club has rules and membership committees who must vert you, We do not, in fact a lot of the non litturgical chuches do and it is frightning. We have made changes by opening up our church for school, by singing in the community, by events like the Jazz group, Like Taize. If you have more ideas then tell the minister , the wardens, bring your friend to church
We have a sign in the driveway and puting events on it os a good idea
Why is a colourful window differnt than a clear glass, at least it conveys spirit and can intrigue people who appreciate that type of style.
Nabck to non church goers,, that rests with each one of us to do something individually , as a group in what ever methods we can make work..
Pulling apart the building to be plain does what??
April 26, 2012 at 8:27 pm
kimgye
Well Rob,
First off, I would only consider changing the church if and when the useful life of the building nears an end (in other words when a significant rebuild is required to keep it up to the building code). To do otherwise is probably not good stewardship of our finances. But if faced with rebuilding it as it is now, my selfish choice would be to change it. Shake things up a bit. Do our best to see what a new church today should look like. I recognize that as humans we naturally avoid change and like to stay with what we know. It feels safe. But for me, my very limited understanding about Christ was that he was not about staying the same course or playing it safe and comfortable. So I would vote for change. Something a little radical even. Whatever might bring new blood to the body. Like I said, just some selfish thoughts. In the end we would all decide together. In the meantime, it has been nice to dream…………….:)
April 27, 2012 at 3:20 pm
rob
Kim
Change for the sake of change has no basis in my view. Nothing to do with not wanting change. Jesus caused change due to listening to other than the Lord
If we had no buildings we still need to know and expand our fellowship
August 3, 2012 at 11:23 am
Kelly Seminoff
Much of our desire for change comes from our culture, our constantly evolving ideas of what it means to worship. When considering church architecture we have to get beyond the idea of style, that which is continually changing. Rather than debating chairs vs. pews, if we could express more of the basic attributes of God (whose character never changes) in our buildings, then maybe they would remain relevant for decades, possibly even centuries.