post by Sophia de Sousa and Katerina Alexiou

On 12 February, 2020, The Empowering Design Practices research team gathered with partners and community collaborators, colleagues, funders and friends to celebrate five years of research exploring community leadership in design within the context of historic places of worship. This was a day to share learning and the resources produced by the research team, to celebrate community achievements and to explore the potential, opportunities and challenges that these buildings, and their custodians, face in providing welcoming spaces for their whole community.

The project's celebratory conference and exhibition, Empowering Design Practices LIVE was held at St Paul's in Hammersmith, a wonderful example of a church that has reinvented itself and transformed its building and offer to the community. The event was a wonderful opportunity to bring together the wide range of people and organisations that engaged with the project to reflect on work we have done together and to generate ideas and propositions for the future.

The day kicked off with an overview of the project and our key learning points and recommendations, based on our experience of collaborating with over 50 places of worship around the country, as well as professionals and support bodies that work with them. This was a moment to reflect on the specialness of historic places of worship as buildings, and on the custodians tasked with looking after and unleashing the potential in these buildings. Through a design lens, we explored how community leadership, partnership working and effective community engagement can help ensure the long-term sustainability of these buildings, and help support local networks, community development and the life and vibrancy of these much-valued sacred heritage buildings.   

The morning also included a panel discussion of various partners briefly sharing their key reflections and learning points, from the perspective of the organisations and sectors they represent. A key message that came through, articulated brilliantly by Historic England’s Head of Places of Worship and Owners Advice, Diana Evans, was that engagement in design is important, it requires support and capacity building, but it can also be great fun, a space to build confidence and a frame in which important connections, friendships and partnerships can be formed. 

The rest of the day included both panel discussions  and interactive workshop sessions.

Our first panel of invited speakers was made up of representatives of community-led design projects at various points on their journey. Revd Canon Caroline Dick and Churchwarden David Wilcox from St Michael and All Angels, Whitton Gilbert spoke about their Breathing Space project, and the importance of a vision being greater than simply the reordering of the church. They stressed the importance of talking to people, and bringing them with you on a journey to which each person and organisation can contribute in their own way. 

Revd Simon Lockett from St Peter’s Church, Peterchurch spoke of the need to form partnerships, and the importance of being willing to experiment and if necessary, to change direction of travel in response to changing circumstances. He stressed the importance of high quality and values-driven design, and that this can be achieved with varying budgets. 

Revd Geoffrey Eze from All Saints Church, Hanley spoke of the creation of a new enclosed space within their church, and the importance of changes to a building being catalytic, enabling new partnerships and new ways to serve the community as well as the congregation. 

And finally, Adam Yusuf, Chair of Israac Somali Community Association in Sheffield, spoke of the group’s collaboration with the EDP research project, and with The University of Sheffield. These helped grow the e group’s awareness and appreciation for their building as an entity with its own history and identity, and realise the role that design can play in creating opportunities for the building to serve their community objectives. He also spoke of the importance of connecting with other groups taking on similar projects to transform their buildings, and how much they could learn from each other.  

Our panel of professional speakers was tasked with presenting brief provocations from the perspective of an architect, a support officer and a researcher, which then led us into a plenary discussion with the room. 

Some challenging questions and propositions were put to the room: Aidan Potter, Partner at John McAslan Architects quoted Jane Jacobs’ famous words, “Old buildings need new ideas” and challenged the room to be bold in our thinking about what is possible in places of worship. He also reminded us that the design for these buildings has to be a collective endeavour, with the architect simply one element of a complex and collaborative design process. Architect and researcher Nevine Nasser spoke of the relationship between sacred space and sacred experience, and reminded us that faith buildings must integrate into the society that surrounds them. Perhaps the most challenging provocation came from Wendy Coombey, Community Partnership & Development Officer at the Diocese of Hereford, who reminded us that these buildings must be at the service of people, and not the other way around. She asked what would happen if the custodians of these complex listed buildings facing the challenge of innovation and sustainability, simply decided to give the buildings back and opt for alternative spaces to gather and worship.

The exhibition offered a snapshot of the project, with key information and statistics about the activities and groups with which we have collaborated. It also included a section which introduced the wide spectrum of practical resources developed throughout the project and artefacts from public engagement  activities and live student projects. The resources on offer for people to explore and take away included interactive websites Explore Design: community buildings, A Design Thinking Guide, as well as freely downloadable materials such as our Design Project Stories and our series of Designing Places with People booklets, on engaging communities in the design process. The exhibition also introduced emerging resources on working with architects, key topics for consideration when setting off on a project to transform a place of worship, and an online course on community leadership in design. 

We also shared a series of films produced within the project, which include inspiring stories of community engagement in design, a practical resource on using digital media as a design engagement tool, and films capturing our Design Training, a workshop on developing a shared purpose, and related projects Prototyping Utopias and Tate Exchange.

Finally, the exhibition space included a policy corner which invited participants to record thoughts and recommendations about four key questions. Here is a small taster of the ideas that emerged:

How do we connect heritage buildings with the broader context of placemaking? 

• Build links with wider, existing place making strategies locally and nationally to create a cohesive approach. 
• Identify within local planning policy that S106 (CIL) can go towards the reuse of heritage buildings for community/ services/ etc. 

How do we champion and enable community engagement in design decision-making? 

• By showing the local community that changing our buildings will lead to more meaningful resources for the community. 
• By funders encouraging this approach as a precursor to investment, to secure more sustainable projects. A release of funds for project development? 
• By ensuring that they are engaged in the process from the start and listening to them. Solutions shouldn’t be imposed in a top-down approach. ​

How do we raise awareness of the value of historic places of worship in the local economy/ society? 

• Collect feedback from community users and congregations, encourage councils to read it! 
• By not holding up historic places simply as places of beauty but also as useful spaces that can benefit the local community. ​

How do we build capacity for community leadership in the design and adaptation of places of worship? 

• Partnerships with local government and councils for voluntary services.
• Training faith leaders. Central web-based resources, including a list of faith leaders willing to advise others. 
• If owners + funders realised a vital first step was capacity building (if assets are to be protected) they would prioritise this as a first step. You wouldn’t build a house without paying for a land survey first. 

The event offered opportunities for people to engage practically with some of the project’s methods aiming to facilitate collaborative exploration of issues and ideas and the generation of ideas for future actions.

The first workshop of the day (which ran in parallel to the community presentations) brought people together to explore the challenges, assets and opportunities that arise in the efforts to unlock and enhance the potential of historic religious buildings as places of community value. Participants worked in groups to map and connect their ideas about the barriers they face, but also the assets they have (their skills, resources, support) and to collectively come up with suggestions for future actions or processes. Here are some of their suggestions:

• Feeding grassroots knowledge (and longevity and connections) of faith buildings to governance - spreading awareness of Taylor Report
• Creatively connecting communities to construct and share knowledge and ownership 
• Investigate partnerships with local agencies, local councillors, voluntary organisations, local groups and local activities
• Build networks
• Challenge the church establishment to be more radical about what churches can be

The final activity of the day brought everybody together to co-create ideas for possible future collaborations, actions, projects or networks. This ‘cross-pollination’ workshop focused in particular on exploring ways to enable custodians of places of worship to shape the future of their buildings, and the suggestions generated during the morning workshop were brought to bear on people’s thinking. Participants put on the table their resources, current projects and aspirations and explored synergies, connections and new ideas. A champion from each table then moved around to other tables to pitch their ideas and garner further support. At the end of a long day, it was heartening to see the unwilting enthusiasm with which everyone continued to share their knowledge, experience and goodwill to help build capacity in community-led design and support and strengthen communities around historic places of worship.

We would like to thank everyone who attended the day, and shared their stories, reflections and ideas for the future. It is clear that there was fantastic energy and momentum in the room, and that there is much we can do together looking forward.

by Dr Katerina Alexiou

One of the instruments the EDP project had anticipated using to explore certain research questions and generate ideas for future steps was that of the design studio. A design studio is typically a space for collaborative enquiry where participants go through a learning journey together by engaging in creative design activities.
 
In May we held our first design studio to explore Live Projects. Live Projects are educational initiatives in which university students work on real practical projects for a designated period of time as part of their study. By the time of our design studio, the EDP project had already supported five different Live Projects with historic places of worship in collaboration with the University of Sheffield School of Architecture and University College London (UCL) and so this was a good stage to pause for reflection. We also wanted to open up the conversation with other initiatives from other universities and provide a creative space to share and discuss Live Project experiences from various perspectives (academics, community members, students and practitioners), and take stock of the future of this type of activity.
 
There is already a lot of literature around the value of Live Projects for students, establishing, for example, how they help them gain practical experience and build important skills in project management, communication and team working. Live projects also have a social value and as our project’s emphasis is on community-led design, we were also interested to focus on the collaborative working process and particularly to explore the impact Live Projects have on participating communities.
 
The design studio took place at St Luke’s Community Centre in London and brought together some leading Live Project initiatives in architecture across the UK, from the University of Sheffield, the University of West of England, Cardiff University, University of Nottingham, London Metropolitan University and UCL. We also had community representatives from Bow Church in London, Cemetery Road Baptist Church in Sheffield, Brandon Trust in Bristol, and Grange Pavilion in Cardiff, as well as students who worked with them, and other communities not present in the room, such as ISRAAC Somali Community Association in Sheffield, St Peter’s Church in Chester, St Peter’s Church Congleton and a built project in South Africa.
 
In the first part of the day, each live project group was paired with another to share their experiences and discuss key features of their projects, but also key challenges they encountered and things that were important to their success. The task of each grouping was to use various crafts materials provided to create a shared representation of those key aspects. 

The discussions and the activity helped unearth the different contexts and commonalities and variations between projects, in terms of people involved, skills and resources mobilised, and processes and materials used. For example there were notable variations in terms of size, duration and intensity of projects, with some lasting over a few weeks, others spread over a year or a number of years. The type of projects varied as well, from single student projects, to group projects ranging from 4 to 30 students. There were also different ways in which universities and students engaged with community groups, some to define project briefs or to deliver activities on the ground, with different accompanying mechanisms of support and roles played by different actors in the process.
 
The session concluded with a plenary discussion on the benefits of live projects for communities, which brought out some important points about the significance and value of live projects. Here are some key points:

• The energy and enthusiasm of students is an asset. Live projects bring in inspiration and can help communities/clients consider a wider spectrum of opportunities and ideas for a place.
• Live projects provide a space for enquiry and reflection and can help articulate the needs and specialness of a particular context.
  
• The live project activity can help build momentum, and be a catalyst for change.
• The value of live projects rests more in the process rather than the product (the outcomes). They promote mutual learning and help build infrastructures and a community's capacity and confidence to deliver projects.

 
The second part of the day focused on future opportunities. This time participants reflected from their unique position as students, community representatives or academics, to identify ideas for activities or resources that can promote or improve live projects in the future. These ranged from good practice guidelines on how to develop collaborative briefs for live projects, to ideas for the development of new tools and resources (such as an app for aiding communication), to more strategic objectives such as setting up a live projects network and promoting further collaboration across institutions and sectors.
 
The EDP project has set an objective to further explore the mechanisms and potential of live projects as vehicles of empowerment, so we hope to follow up some of these actions within the realm of EDP. In the short term, we are supporting two more Live Projects this year in collaboration with our partners at the Sheffield School of Architecture. For now, I will close the blog with a huge thanks to everyone who took part in the design studio for being so generous with their time and knowledge. 

post by Matthew Steele, The Open University

This is a report from an event organised at the University of Oxford 27-29 January 2016. The event brought together speakers from academia, the heritage sector, and the architectural profession. After an introductory talk by Mark Chapman (University of Oxford), which outlined the main themes to be explored over the weekend, the first speaker was John Harper (Bangor University) whose paper focussed on the Roman Catholic Church and the impact of the Second Vatican Council. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (1963) is generally considered to the most significant change to the liturgy since the Council of Trent (1545-1563). New churches were needed which reflected the new liturgy, whilst existing churches had to be adapted.

In addition to liturgical reorderings, Richard Halsey (Friends of Friendless Churches) highlighted the creation of new Anglican and Roman Catholic diocese in the 20th century as another influence on church adaptation: certain parish churches were expanded to reflect their elevated status as cathedrals. Examples include Bradford Cathedral, extended by Edward Maufe (1940-65), and Blackburn Cathedral enlarged by W.A. Forsyth (1938-60) and Lawrence King (1962-77). With costs typically borne by local parishioners, not the diocese, it is perhaps understandable that the huge crypt of Blackburn Cathedral incorporated community facilities.

The evolution of religion and religious architecture has run parallel and, on occasion, become intertwined.  Kate Jordan’s (University of Westminster) research on monastic buildings tackles the problem of how to study different religious groups with varying traditions using theological change as the underlying theme. It was at the Benedictine Christ the King, Cockfosters (1939-40), designed by Dom Constantine Bosschaerts, for example, that the first Catholic mass spoken directly to the congregation took place in Britain. In recent years, the pressure to adapt monastic buildings has stemmed from the aging and numerically declining religious communities who occupy them. This suggests a new era of smaller abbeys and convents beckons: see Stanbrook Abbey, North Yorkshire (2015) Fielden Clegg Bradley Studios.

The theme of religious communities was continued by Robert Proctor (University of Bath) who suggested that the Second Vatican Council was, perhaps, not as central to change within the Roman Catholic Church as is typically held, and that other factors were operative throughout the 20th century. Finances for church building were provided by parishioners, which impacted upon their character. Occasions such as the laying of a foundation stone were a cause for community celebration, and often accompanied by public processions. Once building works were complete, it was common for fitting and fixtures to be donated by parishioners.

This idea of the Roman Catholic churches as an expression of its worshipping community contrasts sharply with early 20th century Anglican attitudes as described by Alan Doig (University of Oxford). Nicholson and Spooner’s book Recent English Ecclesiastical Architecture (1910) was illustrative of a prevalent attitude that the problem of church design lay with style only. For the Anglicans that meant Gothic. The Byzantine-styled Great Chapel at Kelham Hall (1928) by P.H. Currey and C.C. Thompson was a departure from this convention, whilst St Nicholas, Burnage (1932) and St Michael and All Angels, Northern Moor (1937) by N.F. Cachemaille-Day were not only stylistically different, but also liturgically radical.

Amongst nonconformist denominations, according to Chris Wakeling (University of Keele), fundraising for church building promoted a degree of local competitiveness. Despite dwindling membership, nonconformist church building continued apace into the late-1920s. Uttoxeter Road Junction Baptist Church (1928) was erected in the Gothic style with pitch pine furnishings whilst, in an act of one-upmanship, the nearby Hancock Memorial Church (1930) built by the Primitive Methodists had oak fitting and fixtures throughout. In the 1930s, further nonconformist church building resulted from the drift to the suburbs, although the Methodists did not entirely give up on city centre sites: see Coventry Central Hall (1932) by Claude Redgrave.

In Scotland too, denominational identities were expressed through architecture. Following the 1929 unification of the Church of Scotland and the Free Churches, Simon Green (Historic Environment Scotland) described how new churches remained fairly traditional: see Episcopal Church of St John the Baptist, Rothiemurchus (1929) by Ninian Comper, and Reid Memorial Church of Scotland, Edinburgh (1929-33) by L.G. Thomson. In the same period, the Roman Catholic churches of Gillespie, Kidd and Coia, such as St Peter in Chains, Ardrossan (1938), were more innovative stylistically, if not liturgically. It was not until 1960 that the Church of Scotland went truly modern with St Columba, Glenrothes (1960) by Wheeler and Sproson; Kildrum Parish Church, Cumbernauld (1962) by Alan Reiach; and Brucefield Church, Whitburn (1966) by Rowand Anderson Kininmonth.

Although the identity of the Orthodox church in Britain has typically sought to revive the memory of Byzantium, drawing inspiration from Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, national identity has also been a factor. Robin Gibbons (University of Oxford) explained that the history of the Russian Orthodox Church, for example, is one dictated by geopolitical circumstance, and the style of their churches can vary depending upon the country in which it has sought cover: see the Chapel for the Russian Embassy, 32 Welbeck Street, London (1866) by James Thomson.

Like the Russian Orthodox Church, the Jewish Synagogue has also, at times, had to operate covertly. However, the emancipation of the Jews in the 19th century saw the synagogue move from the back streets to more prominent city centre locations across Europe. In Britain, this move coincided with the period of the 19th century known in architecture for the ‘Battle of the Styles’. The dominant style for synagogues in Britain was called ‘oriental’ and, according to Sharman Kadish (Jewish Heritage UK), this was encouraged by civic authorities keen to emphasise the ‘otherness’ of its Jewish population and to ensure synagogues were not confused with churches. Exemplar of the style was Brondesbury Park Synagogue, Kensal Rise (1905), now a mosque. See also Leicester Synagogue by (1898) by Arthur Wakerley; Bournemouth Synagogue (1911) by Lawson and Reynolds; and Blackpool Synagogue (1916) by R.B. Mather. Note, in all three latter cases, the architect was also mayor of their respective town.

As has historically been the case with other minority faith groups in Britain, Shaheed Saleem (Makespace Architecture) explained that Islamic worship today often takes place within a house. These so-called ‘house mosques’ account for around 45 per cent of Islamic places of worship in Britain: of the remaining, 39 per cent occupy converted premises, with just 16 per cent being purpose built. Early examples of purpose built mosques include Shah Jahan Mosque, Woking (1889) by W Chamber, and Fazl Mosque, London (1926) by Thomas Mawson; both in a style which could be described as ‘oriental’ after the 19th century synagogues mentioned above. Architects were not always used, however. Indeed, mosques were often self-designed and funded by local businessmen: East London Mosque (1940), for example, combined three existing terraced houses. This tradition continued at Kingston Mosque (1980-2000); an incremental conversion of terraced housing with a recently added minaret.
​
Overall the conference made it clear that, both within and between the Christian denominations and other faith groups of Britain, there has been a great deal of stylistic and functional variation over time. Geographical location, such as city centre versus suburb, has been a factor, whilst the role of the architect in relationship to a given worshipping community has also varied. Therefore, our understanding of what a places of worship is, or could be, should never be fixed; a pertinent point in this present period of church adaptation for wider community use.

Image credits:
 
St Michael and All Angels, Northern Moor: Author's own image
Reid Memorial Church, Edinburgh: Image by Jamesx12345 [CC BY-SA 4.0] via Wikimedia Commons
St Columba, Glenrothes: Image by Mcwesty [CC BY-SA 3.0] via Wikimedia Commons
Blackpool Synagogue: Image by Belovedfreak [CC BY-SA 3.0] via Wikimedia Commons
Fazl Mosque, London: Image by Ceddyfresse [Public domain] via Wikimedia Commons

​Matthew Steele is a PhD candidate at The Open University. His research, being conducted as part of the AHRC-funded Empowering Design Practices project, is concerned with architectural practices in relation to historic places of worship in the post-1945 period

Post by Theodore Zamenopoulos

Here is a question: How could we design places of worship that are shared by different faith groups and/or other secular groups? This is a question relevant to historic places of worship - which is the focus of the Empowering Design Project - but also new religious buildings and spaces. Behind this question lies perhaps a more interesting question: Why should we create new or adapt existing and often historical religious buildings into shared spaces?

These questions have become relevant to an increasingly large number of people, at least in the UK, for ostensibly different reasons, relating to issues of social cohesion and inter-cultural communication, theological reasons, or reasons relating to the preservation of heritage and the efficient use of existing resources and spaces. The questions formed the topic of a debate that was organised by the Baroness Warsi Foundation in collaboration with the Empowering Design Practices project (EDP) on the 25th of November 2016 at Liverpool School of Architecture. Chaired by Lord Alton of Liverpool, the debate included a series of provocations from a panel of speakers that brought a diverse range of experience and insights into the topic:

• Dr. Andrew Crompton, Head of the School of Architecture, University of Liverpool
• Daniel Leon and Matthew Lloyd, two of the architects behind the tri-faith prayer space, the Friday, Saturday, Sunday project
• The Most Revd Malcolm McMahon OP, Archbishop of Liverpool
• Sophia de Sousa, member of the Empowering Design Practices project research team & Chief Executive, The Glass-House Community Led Design.

Public debates can some times be a disconnected assembly of different points of view. This was certainly not the case with this one. It felt to me that the discussion between the speakers and the audience evolved as a passionate, but also intimate conversation in which a large number of people had the chance to talk and share their views.  
  
But let’s see some of the arguments and points that were made.

At first the audience was asked to consider "a windowless, white room with a chair and a mat" and maybe a sign that indicates that this is a room where anyone can pray. How useful and meaningful will this be for people who want to pray? Indeed, a large number of public buildings (such as airport, hospitals or schools) have these ‘multi-faith rooms’ – although no legal obligation is currently in place to require the inclusion of these places within public buildings. Dr. Andrew Crompton, the Head of the School of Architecture at University of Liverpool started the debate with this provocation for the audience but also for architecture more generally: can we create places that are sacred for all, discarding all the symbols and features that carry meaning to different faith groups? Or is this is 'a no-mans land’?

Whatever our position to the above challenge is, the existence of these places is essentially a "statement about the strength of our faith" as Most Revd Malcolm McMahon OP recognised at the beginning of his speech. But then he added that "these spaces belong to nobody". Places of worship are buildings that are entrenched with meaning. The architectural features, the organisation of space or the orientation of space has a theological meaning which directly speaks to the spiritual needs of people. If we reduce the architecture into a blank (neutral) space then something is lost. 

Daniel Leon and Matthew Lloyd, two of the architects behind the tri-faith prayer space, the Friday, Saturday, Sunday project brought a different dimension to the conversation. Their project explores the very question of shared spaces through architecture, experimenting with how the orientation of the spaces will be tackled, how worshipping spaces could be overlaid so as to allow different faiths to witness the practices of each other without compromising their spiritual needs, and how these practices could be wrapped up in a built form able to express meanings relevant to three different faith groups. More recently, they have also started working on the possibility of a more temporal multi-faith structure where some common activities (e.g. cooking) can happen. As Matthew said, “it is difficult to create a meaningful shared space”, but certainly architecture can explore these boundaries.
​
The final provocation came from Sophia de Sousa, Chief Executive of The Glass-House Community Led Design who represented our EDP project. The provocation started with a series of questions to the audience about the relationship of people with religious buildings which brought to the fore another dimension of the discussion. This is the challenge, not (only) to define the architectural features of a building inhabited by different faith groups, but to understand the meaning that these buildings and places acquire when they accommodate secular activities and wider community uses. In the context of adapting historic places of worship particularly, there are so many different ‘red lines’ for these adaptations depending on the faith group, denomination, but also locality, that the task defies universal design solutions. Ultimately it is the local group that looks after these buildings that determines what is needed and what is meaningful for that particular place. 

Reflecting back on the debate, I would argue that at the very heart of these conversations were the tensions that arise around the meaning and identity of a building that is shared by different communities, as well as tensions that arise around the identity of the community that uses (or will use) the building. Although, the term ‘identity’ was mentioned only a few times, the discussion brought to the fore various tensions around this notion. Religious buildings acquire their meaning and identity because of their history, their religious features, but also their relationship with the place within which they are situated. There are many identities that people within these communities want to protect or reinforce within these buildings.

Some contradictions were also noted during this debate: a member of the audience said, “a lot of people within congregations would know very little about the theological meaning of their buildings”. For them, meaning is embedded in their personal relationship with the building and in some cases the building may be irrelevant to the purpose and identity of a congregation. But it was also argued that for some people the experience of entering into a place of worship is very complex: that it is not only about the perception of archetypical religious features, but it is also about all the sensory information that comes with it (i.e. the distinctive smells and sounds). This sensory environment shapes the important spiritual connections that otherwise can be diluted into nothing.
​
But again, people and communities also want to ‘build bridges with others’ and shape an identity that is open and inclusive to people from different faiths or cultures. Indeed, tackling social issues or sharing ‘food’ were extensively discussed as common practices that connect people in places of worship. So maybe what this all points to is the need to rethink how we design or adapt places of worship. And understand why or whether different communities (faith or secular) can come together under the same roof. Well, it seems to me the answer is blowing in the wind.

post by Becky Payne

Three of us went to visit St John the Baptist at Stadhampton on Saturday 15th October. I was especially pleased as I had last visited St John’s in 2013 when the builders were still in situ, scaffolding was still up in the nave and the cement was still wet in the arch leading into the new toilets. It was a project I was very interested in as it is one of a few villages setting up an arrangement whereby the Parochial Church Council (PCC) and the village share the responsibility of looking after and managing their church building.  

It was great to see it two years on – the buildings work finished and the building being used by both the congregation and the community. Absolutely a win-win for both village and church.

Stadhampton, a small village of 800 had really been lacking a community space since the 1960s when the old hall had burnt done.  They had been using the school hall but this was only available outside school use and was becoming less available as the school increased in size. There had been talk of the need for a village hall for several years and a committee set up who looked at various options including new build. At the same time, the church had a very small congregation, was in need of major repairs as well as being cold and damp and having no main drainage. So the PCC was very pleased when they were approached by the Village Hall Committee with the suggestion of using the church.
​
It cost just under £400k and took about 5 years and the church is now repaired, refurbished and is on main drainage. There are two toilets in an extension to the west end, and a fully equipped kitchen and serving area in the north aisle. The pews have gone and have been replaced by comfortable chairs. There is a retractable screen which can be lowered for the Film Club and then disappears entirely restoring the east end to how it has always looked. The base of the tower has been refurbished with modern storage cupboards and is now a comfortable vestry. The restoration of the beamed ceiling, the cleaning of the stonework, the careful design of the wooden panels around the kitchen and the new floor has created a very beautiful and calming space.

But as we know and as was emphasised by the project chair and champion, it is much more than the bricks and mortar, it is about the people.  And we were met by a group of 16 people – the largest group of people that have attended one of these workshops and welcomed into a warm and comfortable building, but one that has retained a very special feeling and one that is still very much a church.
​
Like all similar projects, it was a challenging 5 years with moments of despair as well as celebration, but the testament of its success was those 16 people, some who had been part of the original building committee, and some – which bodes well for the future - people who have joined since completion because they wanted to come and help manage the new building. They all obviously love the space they have created and are quite rightly proud of what they now have.

Looking back during the mapping exercise, they came up with plenty of top tips especially around funding, but also about the importance of continuing to keep checking that people are ‘on side’. What came through loud and clear was that ‘you need champions’ which on one level is about having a supportive bishop (which in their diocese, they do!) but also that any project of this complexity needs its own champion – the person who keeps it going, not just the co-ordination, but who keeps on pushing on through the setbacks and unforeseen problems and also manages to inspire others to keep on too. It was so clear that this person had been Ann Stead the Chair of the Building Committee who had fulfilled that role and was indeed still fulfilling that role! One of her top tips was that you need to keep hold of a clear vision and narrative which is one that you can articulate to funders, the community, the congregation as well as it being your own inspiration when things appear overwhelming.

Most telling for me was a member of the congregation who said that although she had been fully behind the plans from the beginning she was happy to find that the refurbished building remained very much a church. From a more personal perspective, she said that she had been worried about retiring and feared that she might become isolated. In fact, the new activities which were happening as a result of the new community space, had meant that she had plenty to do and meeting people was not an issue. Similarly, another volunteer said that she had been considering leaving the village as it was so difficult to meet people. Inspired by the project, she had volunteered to be on the management committee and the village had become home again.

Seeing photographs of the pews that had previously filled the nave, we saw during the workshop what a flexible space it has become. For the morning session we sat in a circle of chairs, and at lunchtime, three tables suddenly appeared and were arranged down the length of the nave covered in white table cloths and we ate delicious soup, bread and cake properly sitting down and then for the afternoon, those tables were rearranged to become space for the project timeline exercise.
​
The key for me was that just before I left, I looked back at the chancel and the screen had disappeared, the kitchen area was all clean and tidied up and all the chairs and tables had been put away except for two rows of chairs facing the altar all set up ready for the Sunday service the next morning. A truly shared space and does it matter that some people call it the church and some call it the hall? No, because it is fulfilling both roles perfectly. 

post by Katerina Alexiou

In the last few months we have been in contact with the Baroness Warsi Foundation to explore synergies between our projects and the potential to share and disseminate learning.
 
The Baroness Warsi Foundation’s ‘Modern Places of Worship’ project, explores the interplay between architecture, faith and identity from both an historic and a modern perspective.  The Foundation is hosting a series of ten UK-wide debates, and aims to publish a report and launch an architectural design competition.
 
Drawing on our common interest on exploring the relationship between places of worship and local communities we decided to partner on a debate on “Shared spaces: the modern place of worship”. The debate is focussed on exploring the potential for places of worship to be shared, by different faith groups, by the wider community, and for mixed uses. It is held on the 25th of November, 3:00-5:00 at Liverpool School of Architecture.
 
The connection between people and their place of worship, and between a place of worship and the wider community around it, is layered with complex connotations, interpretations and feelings. Places of worship are fundamental to faith communities, providing a physical space to practice their faith and to come together. Bricks and mortar take on spiritual and faith values. For others, a place of worship may feel out of their reach or disconnected from their local community. What happens when those places of worship become shared spaces?

• Is the form, feeling and function of a building defined by the particular faith practiced there?
• How do different faith groups perceive other places of worship and can different faiths come together in shared buildings?
• Can a faith building accommodate local community activities and services while maintaining its integrity and function as a place of worship?

 
This free debate will consider these questions starting with a series of provocations from a panel of speakers that bring a diverse range of experience and insights into the topic:

• Dr. Andrew Crompton, Head of the School of Architecture, University of Liverpool
• Daniel Leon & Matthew Lloyd, two of the architects behind the tri-faith prayer space, the Friday, Saturday, Sunday project
• The Archbishop of Liverpool, the Most Revd Malcolm McMahon OP
• Sophia de Sousa, Empowering Design Practices project research team & Chief Executive, The Glass-House Community Led Design.

 
The debate will be chaired by Lord Alton of Liverpool.
 
The event is open to anyone interested in exploring the future of places of worship and their place in our communities.
 
Click here to register

post by Sophia de Sousa, The Glass-House Community Led Design

Sometimes, when a community-based organisation is looking after a building, the challenges of the everyday can be overwhelming. This is particularly true when the building must cater to a variety of different needs and users and when it is in need of refurbishment. When the heritage of the building is significant as well, this adds another layer of complexity. For those looking after historic places of worship, all of these considerations must be managed, while respecting the needs and practices of their faith community.

Last month, as part of the Empowering Design Practices (EDP) research project, we invited three community-based groups to take part in our Design Training course, to help them build skills and confidence in design, and to do some practical work exploring how design could help them make the most of the specific buildings they manage.

The groups who took part look after buildings that are home to both faith-based and community activities and services. These groups, the United Reformed Church in Stratford-upon-Avon, St. Mary’s Church, Bow in east London, and the ISRAAC Somali Community and Cultural Association in Sheffield, are all at a moment where they are looking at the potential of their building, and how it can support their vision for the future.
At the Glass-House, we have seen that exploring the design of a building, both in its present form and in imagining its future, can be a powerful tool for looking past those everyday challenges and unlocking its potential as a place that helps people thrive. The process of rediscovering what the building has to offer can also be hugely empowering for the people involved.

Within the EDP research team, we were keen to explore whether getting back to the basics of how buildings work and the design of their buildings could help groups looking after historic places of worship to think differently about them. To do this, we used our Glass-House Buildings by Design training programme, with the support of our long-time Enabler and EDP consultant, Leo Care, who hosted us at the University of Sheffield Arts Tower.

Learning from and through design
The training took the groups through an intensive hands-on series of steps, which included an introduction to design principles and processes, mapping, visioning and model-making. The training also included site visits to three local buildings that have been transformed, which were hosted by the groups that had led the refurbishment process and who now manage those buildings.

The design training offered an important space for our groups to look at their buildings through a new lens. Meeting other groups and projects faced with similar issues and challenges, and learning about some of the solutions they had found, was both encouraging and inspiring. The groups also looked at completed refurbishments with a critical eye, considering the aspects they found more or less relevant and applicable to their own buildings and communities.

Making models of their own buildings also revealed a great deal. Our groups started to look at their buildings as a living thing. They looked at how the spaces fit together, at the different qualities of the various parts of the buildings. They considered our journey through buildings and how design can shape our experience of a place.

We tested various ideas for how they could use design to help transform their buildings. The groups found that small changes could potentially make a big difference to how a space is used, and how people relate to it. Working with the models helped the groups take a more holistic look at their buildings, and clearer visions for the future began to emerge.

At the end of the two intensive days, the groups felt buoyed by the qualities of their buildings and the potential that they could now see in them. One participant admitted that she had felt anxious and a bit reluctant to build a scale model of her church, but that doing it had helped her understand the building differently, and in a strange way, to fall back in love with it.

We look forward to seeing how these groups further develop their ideas and how design can help empower them to enhance their buildings.

Reposted from the Glass-House blog (13 October 2016)

Stephen Smith, architect at Wright & Wright and a consultant on the EDP project, shares two examples of innovative design in church restoration from a visit to Germany last Christmas

A community returns home to a beautiful new church
 
I visited the newly built St. Trinitatis Catholic parish church in Leipzig in crisp January sunshine and found a project that is both aware of its roots and bold and confident in its outlook for the future.
 
The community of St.Trinitatis Church have returned to the city centre after a period of 70 years since bomb damage destroyed their original church. In the 1970s, a replacement church was built at the edges of the city but that never really felt like home. After persistent efforts to find a way back to their origins, the community now has a new church at the centre of the city that forms part of wider rebuilding programme to knit the centre back together.
 
By building the external walls in the striking red stone from the local region, new roots are established in a very contemporary looking church by architects Schulz and Schulz (view information on their site). When working in such an emotionally charged site where physical damage and relocation has occurred, it can be hard to strike the right chord in terms of identity. The decision here to use something as direct as the local stone is a positive statement that a literally solid and long lasting foundation is being established. The architects describe how the coursing of the stone is deliberately random, an intention that the many parts are acting as one: a symbol and embodiment of the community as a whole.
 
The main body of the church is linked to the community hall, cafe and offices by a central courtyard that neatly draws the public up and through it. The focal point of the bold sculptural form is the bell tower. The beautiful artwork both inside and out establishes an inclusive and forward-looking image for the church.

Sustainable solutions through pew restoration
 
Pew restoration in the Weimar Herder Church combines historical craft skills with innovative thinking on heating.
 
Located in the centre of Weimar, home of the famous Cranach Triptych altarpiece paintings, the church community has recently undertaken a series of restoration projects. On visiting for a Christmas service on a chilly December morning we were delighted to find that the pews have an ingenious, yet simple, set of heaters cleverly fixed to the underside of them.
 
One school of thought for heating large volume spaces is that you bring the heat 'to-source' rather than heating the whole space; this particularly cost effective in places of worship which can be only occupied for a short duration in a typical week.

post by Sophia de Sousa, The Glass-House Community Led Design

One of the elements of our Empowering Design Practices project is to visit places of worship that have made physical changes to their building, and to speak to those involved about the process and impact of those changes. We want to learn from their experience to help others, and to consider the roles of design and community in their success.
 
Tucked away in Witton Gilbert, a village outside Durham, is the beautiful parish church of St Michael and All Angels, which has stood there for over 800 years. It sits surrounded by natural beauty, with a churchyard bordering on Witton Dean, parkland that rises from the river below. 

Like many rural parish churches, St Michael and All Angels, has undergone a series of changes to the building over time. What stands there today, though clearly a historic place of worship, is not simply a building frozen in a particular moment in time in the past. Many generations have used the building, made changes to it and done their best to make it respond their needs and to reflect their approach to worship.
 
A clear vision
The success of the recent reordering at St Michael’s is rooted in a clear vision, strong leadership and collaboration from both the faith and lay communities. Their vision, for a quiet Breathing Space, a project to help people find health and well-being, emerged from an open and frank conversation about what and whom the building is for. The starting point was firmly rooted in an understanding of what that particular church and its context have to offer, what makes the place special.

What is so thrilling about St Michael's is that the changes that they have made to their building have been done with such care and attention to detail. They demonstrate design responding cleverly to the values and needs of its congregation while providing new opportunities for their wider community use.
 
Good design matters
St Michael's wanted to make physical changes to their building which are not uncommon in reordering projects. They wanted to improve accessibility, create a more flexible gathering space, and make the building more comfortable and welcoming with the addition of toilet and kitchen facilities. The launch of the Breathing Space project gave both motivation and opportunity to make those changes happen.
 
The clever expansion to either side of the existing porch, completed in December 2012, created significant extra space for a toilet, office, and utility storage cupboard. The stone used on the extension was sourced (from an old ice cream parlour in Sheffield) to blend seamlessly into the existing stonework.

​The conversion of part of the vestry into a kitchen, with a serving hatch through to the side aisle, and the creation of loft storage space, tackled some challenging design questions about balancing the practical with respect for the faith practices and heritage of the building.

The kitchen hatch provides a practical link through to the side aisle, where pews were removed to create a flexible space for activities. The congregation, which is thriving at St Michael’s, were keen not to lose seating space for their services, so high quality foldable chairs were purchased to provide both seating for services, and flexible arrangement of seating for a range of activities in the aisle.
 
Top tips
We are grateful to the Revd Canon Caroline Dick and all of those at St Michael and All Angels, who so generously shared their story and what they had learned along the way. The tips they had for those embarking on a similar project were many. Here are just a few.
​

• Think big vision to get the small things done
• Think in phases, and use your vision to support small steps.
• Reach out and build partnerships.
• Get your most vociferous opponents involved, help them understand your position and give them a voice in decision-making
• Acknowledge and thank people for their contribution

Reposted from the Glass-House blog (2 August 2016)

post by Katerina Alexiou

In the first year of the EDP project we focussed on understanding and collecting examples of good practice in the development of historic places of worship to meet wider community needs. Much of our activity was focussed on visiting past projects and reflecting on the process with those that saw projects through. In November 2015 we also held a focus group with people who provide professional advice and support, particularly officers working for Historic England and project architects. We wanted to get their perspective on the challenges in current practice and examine existing as well new resources and ways in which these challenges can be overcome.
 
We were fortunate to have 15 participants, with a variety of educational and professional backgrounds and an admirable insight and willingness to share their experiences.

Identifying and dealing with challenges
In the first part of the workshop we started with mapping recurring challenges along a timeline, starting with the stages of exploration and visioning, through to development and delivery of plans for adapting historic places of worship. We asked participants to reflect on practical challenges from different perspectives (architectural, faith, heritage and community), always thinking about the particularities of engaging with and serving community needs. The emphasis in the discussion was on Church buildings due to the participants’ experiences, but most of the challenges and themes identified are relevant to different faith buildings and projects.

One of the key challenges identified, particularly important in the initial phases of design, was the relation between church and wider community, and the lack of engagement with one another.  Local communities are often unaware of plans or activities carried out by local places of worship, or are reluctant to engage because of the faith element. Similarly, the worshipping community may find themselves divided between the mission of their faith (and building) and secular needs. In fact this challenge seems to be tightly associated with the existence of multiple attitudes relating to faith, heritage and community. Participants for example mentioned conflicts between heritage and conservation values and the values of a worshipping community, with cases were external communities are interested in preserving the building and historical fixtures and fittings more than the congregation. Similarly there were reported conflicts between ‘old’ and ‘new’ perceptions of spirituality, or ‘old’ and ‘new’ perceptions of heritage. However, lack of engagement may also come because of lack of knowledge of how to engage others in the process. Lack of capacity was another key grand challenge. This includes lack of knowledge of the planning process, terminology (jargon) and skills for project management. To lack of knowledge, it is important to also add lack of time, people resources (beyond the ‘usual suspects’) and lack of funding (especially for visioning and development). Returning to the issue of community engagement, participants also pointed out the lack of community auditing, understanding who the stakeholders are, what their needs are, and what their assets are. A lack of clear statement of need and shared vision is one of the key barriers many projects face and this is something we ourselves are discovering in the new projects we work with. In addition to these challenges, in the later phases of the process, many participants also mentioned the slow pace of the process and the difficulty of maintaining drive and commitment over a long period.
 
But we did not only stay at describing the challenges. Our participants suggested many useful ideas and strategies for overcoming those challenges. Some of the key suggestions were:

• Provide support with the formation of statements of need and significance (e.g. through workshops or sharing of existing resources)
• Develop a community engagement training exercise to identify and define stakeholders
• Provide training on project management (managing budgets, people) and fundraising
• Encourage networking and social events to learn together
• Invert power of Dioceses to empower individual PCCs
• Bring together client committee members, planning officers, DAC officers, architect to discuss ideas and plans
• Develop materials to elucidate the process and jargon
• Provide state funding for preventative maintenance
• Provide funding to make a start

Identify knowledge, resources and training materials for professionals
The second part of the workshop focussed on the knowledge, resources and materials that would be useful for professionals working in the field. Our aim in the EDP project is not only to support groups to lead the development of their places, but also to support those who support them, and provide open training materials to budding architects, designers, and community and building development professionals. The responses can be sorted into two categories: domain specific/local knowledge and key generic skills. The table below summarises some of the key ideas.

Although there are differences between the architects and the support officers, we can identify some common themes. Domain-specific knowledge (e.g. liturgy, history of faiths and faith buildings, terminology, planning process, conservation etc) was seen as a great barrier, the discussion revealed the existence of a wealth of resources that can be consulted. This includes for example the websites of the Princes Regeneration Trust, the National Churches Trust, SPAB and the Maintenance Co-ops project, ChurchCare and Churches Conservation Trust. The EDP team is in the process of collating existing resources together and making them available on the website. See our Resources page.
 
When it comes to skills, there was a significant emphasis on collaborative skills (motivating, engaging, working with, managing others) but critical skills were also important (e.g. researching the community and the history of the place). Creative skills were important too although more implicit perhaps in discussions about methods and processes to help engage with the community, and support collective visioning.

We are grateful for all these discussions and we are planning to carry out more focus groups with experts providing advice and support to places of worship.

All these ideas and observations are making their way into the development of our educational programme, which includes the delivery of a two-day training course for professionals next year, as well as the creation of resources to be delivered through an online open educational platform.