I live in a part of town that is in the middle of being gentrified. Five years ago, crack houses were within a few blocks, now they have been pushed to the other side of the tracks (literally). The whole area is underway with change and I would argue it is for the better. I have posted on this before, but just to give a breif overview: to the south is a very affluent part of town, to the north a very poor part of town and where I live is a middle class (mostly dual income). The strange part is that this is all within a few miles of each other and typically meld at areas like grocery stores.
There used to be a mall that sat between my area and the wealthy area, but the area dried up and retail moved. A developer bought the property and tore down the mall and built a Wal-Mart (you may not have these, I think it is a local chain) and some other run of the mill chains. It is a poorly laid out development: traffic makes no sense, frontage makes no sense and sight lines are pretty bad. I could never figure out why that was.
Recently I have become privy to the planning process of the site and have learned that the site was seated so that the fronts faced the more affluent parts of town. To the rear of the site is a major intersection with access to highway, but they chose to face the whole development (60 some acres) to a two lane road at a funny interchange with another two lane road. They said that they made that decision because they wanted to draw from the affluent population and not the poorer ones to the rear.
Is this racism or good business sense?
I can say that it is not the latter, because I have shopped on site and the demographics are clearly coming from the back of the site and not the front.
I have often asked the question what does our built environment say about how we think and feel? What does our church say to outsiders through it's physical form? What do you scream at your neighbors through the medium of your wooden privacy fence? What do we say about comunity from our automatic garage doors? What if Nolli's maps were really brain-scans of our culture than maps of Rome?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
I think almost all church buildings say we don't care about people unless they're on our team.
for the record - my wooden privacy fence was built to keep dingo in our yard.
but she learned to jump it (it's 6 ft. tall) so it has turned out to be the most expensive dingo obstacle of all time.
Adair,
Do you see an alternative? I do, but I would like to get feedback from a member of the clergy.
Murph,
For the record, your dog is the reason for community strife. You should keep adding on to the height and see how high she can go! Let me know when it gets around 12', I'd like to see that!
Adair, I disagree. I think most church buildings say we don't care what our church buildings look like.
What if church buildings were designes to reflect their purpose? The sanctuary should be designed in a way that is appropriate for worshipping the triune God. The rest of the building should be designed after whatever vision your chuch has. If you are a church that's vision is one of equipping people to go out and serve in there contexts, then the design should reflect and aid in that. If you are a church that seeks to bring outsiders in to your building for whatever it is that you do there with them, then it should be designed to reflect that. If fellowship and building eachother up is a big deal then you should design in a way that is condusive to fellowshipping well. If art is a big deal, design in a way that allows for the promotion of art. It all depends on what your congregation is all about, what is it that they are working together for in kingdom work.
Well said.
Thanks George, but what you address is more about the program of the building. If a church wants to reach out to the youth, a gym would be a great idea or pool tables. But what does that look like from the street?
Take my church for example (and I have had this talk with most of the staff so I don't hesitate and using it as an example). Faith is underway with a building campaign. 3 phases, each around 5 million (sanctuary may be more, but that hasn't been proposed yet). It is seated on a high portion of the lot (I don't know, but I would say the lot is close to 10 acres) overlooking the road and the community college. It is completely surrounded by parking, a moat if you will. In the back, away from site is a fenced in play area for the kids (one that would rival any Macdonald's). It is about 150-200 yards away from the street and the lot was clear cut so only the median plantings are 'landscaped'.
What does that say? Notice I didn't mention anything about what Faith wants to do or the program of the building. I stated what any person would see as they drove by on Valleydale Road.
I don't know, what does it say?
There is no foot traffic so it would only say something to people driving by. And people driving cars would say, "oh look at all the parking spots so close to the building, and on levcel ground, isn't that nice?" I don't see how the playground says anything as it is something that is a structure meant to be perceived from the building, not the road. I like Faith's design. It is one of the better church designs I have seen.
Yeah, Matt, I'm interested in what you think it says. I thought, all in all, Faith's building was pretty good. The topography of the lot forced a lot of the architectural decisions they made, I think. What are you saying is the problem?
I mean, should they have put a big blow up of a gorilla out front with Alan's face on it or something?
I don't mean to keep harping on Faith's building, but I think it is familiar to us all and can serve as an example.
First I must say that Faith has done a much better job with it's building than most churches. They have invested in what God is doing, and I think that is evident in more ways than just the physical structure.
In order to answer you question I must say that I am over critical of building practices of America. I find we are wasteful and near sighted and foresee a time when that will come to bite us. I am also over critical of Christians when it comes to building and the environment. I feel that we are quick to live in the spiritual realm but are slow to pay attention to the physical. I feel the our physical environment can impact our spiritual natural more than we understand. So enough with my qualifiers:
What does the building say to me:
ENVIRONMENTAL: The building is just another structure that isn't grounded to the landscape at all. It is a self-contained entity that could be placed anywhere in the world, much less 'over the mountain' Birmingham. Of the percentage of the lot that is usable (based on it once being a hill) 90% will be impervious to rain fall, with the runoff 'sort of' being contain in a basin. Based on our current drought this was a major over site. The placement of the building speaks nothing to the natural system. It is not orientated north/south or into/away from prevailing winds, it is not even sited to minimize/maximize sunlight. The building sits in the middle of the lot and could be arranged in any number of way. Look at the Cathedrals of Europe for example of building placement. The building was not built to minimize any type of energy consumption, and with the vast amounts of roof line for solar collectors and land for geothermal heat, this was also a over site. I met with a developer who is working on a project downtown and says that you can build 'green' for 2% more in construction cost with annual energy saving making up that difference in the first few years.
Architecturally: The building is an homage to the past. The Tudor style is an appeal to nostalgia and says nothing about the function of the Tudor style. The English had an abundance of wood and the Tudor style is beam construction with earthen fill. The support comes from the wooden beams and the warmth from the 'fill' in between the beams. England has cold wet winters and the building typology reflected this. We now steal that typology because we think it is 'pretty'. That is like hanging a print of the Mona Lisa on your wall and calling it art, compared to hanging the real Mona Lisa on your wall and calling it art. It has no brush stoke or life, it is a color copy, sold in the gift shop and we think we stole it from the Lourve. We have become so detached from our environment that our building models are void of meaning and attachment; no 'genus loci'.
SOCIALLY: I have more beef with the current zoning practices in this area and don't know if they apply to Faith's building. I would say that Church's especially should fight for more community base zoning and stay away from single use land zoning. The probable reason for the placement of the building was that the set-backs were such that it dictated the location of the building, but it is no less a miss opportunity. By setting the building so far back creates a barrier for those who don't feel like they belong. Think of a long drive way; it says, 'don't come up here'. There is no pedestrian movement on or around the site. Even as a member who feels comfortable to turn off the main street and into the parking, I still feel like I don't belong once I get out of my car. There is a sidewalk by the lower parking lot, but it is poorly buffered from the front of cars and it is almost easier to walk in the grass than the sidewalk. Again another missed opportunity. I think all Church should fight to establish and maintain urban fabric and integrate churches back into city life (if we even know what that is anymore).
This is long, so I'll end it there.
ENVIRONMENTALLY: You make some interesting points, but it seems grounded to me. The driving feature of that landscape is the topography and the building follows it. If design according to this significant feature of the land you can't help but not-design according to other features. It seems like you have to pick your battles no matter what. And building are, to a degree, supposed to be independent of the land, that is why they are called buildings. Which leads us into your ARCHITECTURAL section. You argue that the choice of the Tudor style is nostalgic and because we think it is pretty. You seem to suggest that the Tudor style only has meaning in its native and historical environment. But nostalgia and beauty have value. You suggest in your defense of the native Tudor style that design has meaning because of its use of available resources for native purposes. Then how do you argue against this? http://dm.lcc.gatech.edu/%7Ealee/images/Exercise5-final/sprawl.jpg
This All of these houses are build from readily available materials native to it's land. And they are all build to be efficient against the native weather. Does this have as much meaning as the original Tudors? It seems to me that imitating a historic style for historical and aesthetic reasons adds more readily accessible meaning to a building then building t from the materials at hand. Unless you went super-local which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. A print of the Mona Lisa may not be art, but it communicates more meaning then most art does.
Your SOCIAL concerns about the sidewalk may be understandable, but I disagree with your set-back from the road = unwelcoming, or at least I think it is a matter of opinion. When you are in a non-foot traffic environment you wnat to be set-back from the road so people can see it as they drive by. The closer to the road you get the smaller the sight lines get. And when on a busy road a proportional off-ramp type of space is welcome and expected. When you are in a small town context you can have small side-walks and a door right there. When you get into a city like Chicago you need much bigger sidewalks and sometimes a courtyard or square of sorts to improve your doorway. When you are in a driving context, the entry should be proportional to the speed and busy-ness of the traffic. A set-back building with a drive is expected and welcome. That being said, without the rest of the construction complete at least one of the driveways seems excessively long and meandering.
Matt, thanks for taking the time to go through that. I really don't know anything about architecture, so it would probably be pointless for me to say anything. So take what follows with a grain of salt.
I agree with George--ideally, building should represent conquest of and dominion over the land. The Temple was not built "green" as it were, nor was it built with local materials. So I don't think we have any mandate to do either of them (even if it might be *good* to do one or both of them). Symbolically, the Temple was built with materials from the "downstream" lands that were to be "conquered" and "plundered" (as it were)--the materials weren't "native", but had to be collected and brought in. All that to say that I think your "connection to the land" and architectural materials paradigm is really more of a preference thing, or a convention. I think much more important is beauty, wihch George discusses nicely.
My guess is your social concerns are mostly against community design and such. Faith's building doesn't impose itself to me any more than the other buildings along that stretch of Valleydale.
I wish we had more sidewalks and pedestrian stuff, too. I live in Dothan, about a mile from my kids' school. It would be easy and healthy for them to ride their bikes or walk. But the county (and later the city) designed the roads so poorly that about a half mile of the trip would be on a busy, 40mph 2-lane road with deep ditches along each side instead of shoulders, and no sidewalks or even room for pedestrian / bike lanes. So we pile our kids in our SUV (the only thing that will fit all of them) and drive them the mile each way. All because of poor design and planning. So, I see where you're coming from with that.
George:
What's the deal, man? You're making way too much sense these days and I'm beginning to become concerned. I suspect some lurking surprise attack.
Ha ha. Maybe it is you that has changed. Perhaps you ought to go see a doctor or something.
Jeff,
With you temple example, it is you who seems like the luddite:)
I appreciate both your and George's comment and I always take them with a grain of salt. What is funny is that my post was barely about churchs, but off we go, and I am happy to go there.
I would assume we would all agree that current building practices leave much to be desired (your travels to school for example) and a lot of that poor building is a result of not thinking about what we are doing and why we are doing it. While I think you and George are heavy handed in your approach and that dominion is different than dominance (think symbioticly), we are more on the same page than not.
It's all about the Church, baby!
About this: "With you temple example, it is you who seems like the luddite:)"
I'm too thick to get it. Whaddya mean?
your example about the temple referenced a culture that was much different than ours today. Our understanding of systems and technology and impact is different than those during the temple days. You almost suggest that we should use the same 'filter' or building theory of the Old Testament for today's world.
But more than that is was intended to be a joke.
Oh, I figured it was a joke. I'm just too thick to get it. Don't you hate to have to explain your jokes?
But, what I was actually trying to do is come from a "biblical" standpoint. I do think the scriptures speak to things like this, and the Temple and its construction is one place (perhaps the one of the only places) where the biblical data can be found. Environmentalists *tend* to claim moral one-upsmanship (I'm not at all saying that *you* are doing this), and I was trying to show that using local materials as a mandated building practice goes beyond the biblical principl, and thus could not be a real moral high-ground. There was plenty of wood and stone in the area around Jerusalem that they could have used, but God had wood brought in from Tyre and gold from Philistia (and Egypt) and all that. In other words, He didn't just say "build a temple with these plans", but had them do it with specific materials, etc., and I think there is a pattern there that can instruct us.
Maybe I'm pressing it too hard, though.
JB,
the Bibliluddite . . .
Matt,
I know this may be a little late, but I am a landscape architect in the Birmingham area as well (I attend church with Jed Parks) and I definitely share in your frustrations. It's fitting that your original complaint about a strip mall layout warped into a discussion on church architecture, mostly because they both were designed by the same people (or may as well have been anyway.) Architects have very little training in historical styles and are rarely qualified to design something as symbolically laden as a church.The Mock Tudor style you described is a residential style and has no precidence in a religious building. That's not to say that established styles can't be interpreted in new ways, but it has to be done in a way that visually seperates the mundane from the sacred. I think this is why The Temple was built of exotic materials. If it's supposed to be God's house, it has to be more than just a bigger version of one of ours.
The symbology goes deeper into the human psyche than I think most people realize. Imagine if I were to build a secular school that looked like a church. People would accuse me of trying to supplant religion with education, based solely on the style of my building.
You should see the building we worship in. We share it with a Baptist congregation, who shall remain nameless, but if you want to see it, look for the giant pyramid off Alford Ave. on 65. You have to wonder exactly what the architect thought people would be worshiping in there.
Patrick,
Welcome. I will try not to hold that you know Jed against you, but it will be hard:)
Good point about the sacred/common aspect. I was watching an episode of 'This Old House' yesterday where they (the host and some architect) taking a tour of Boston (one of my favorite American cities). They were looking at the church in Copley Square and how it juxtaposed the I.M. Pei skyscraper across the street. The church is heavy and grounded, made of stone it welcomes all in the plaza where as the tower is made of reflective glass and reaches to the sky. The divine has been replaced by the commerce. The reach is for the almighty dollar instead of the almighty.
But what do you, as a fellow LA (although I have sold my soul and work for developers (Jed never had a soul)), think about not grounding the physical form of the building into the site it occupies?
Nice website and everybody should totally comply with the author on this one here. Its hillarious, thats what i should write about this post. Because this should be what the whole internet thing is all about right? Keep on doing a great job!
log beds
Nice website and everybody should totally comply with the author on this one here. Its hillarious, thats what i should write about this post. Because this should be what the whole internet thing is all about right? Keep on doing a great job!
log beds
Post a Comment