By Colin McNeish

On 9 March in Glasgow I had the pleasure of taking part in the excellent workshop arranged in partnership with Empowering Design Practices and the Church Buildings Renewal Trust (CBRT) - joining communities in the renewal of church buildings by engaging early in the design process.
 
Delegates came from groups engaged in Community Buy Outs and Church groups exploring projects to extend the use and flexibility of their respective properties, spaces that play a key role within their communities and contribute significantly to the local architectural townscape.  Without either there would be a cultural gap in our towns and villages. There were also a number of professionals from the CBRT network in attendance.

After some inspiring stories from EDP team members Sophia and Vera about successful case studies, including a summary of the unique history of our venue at Adelaide Place Baptist Church, we were introduced to approaches of engaging people in design and demystifying the process.  The workshop which followed in the afternoon proved of great value to the groups as they explored in their own contexts the implications of putting into practice the principles outlined in the morning session.

One of these activities engaged delegates in memory mapping the details of their buildings, identifying the qualities of the positive and negative aspects that need to be addressed to improve the spaces and their use.  They used practical tools of drawing and explored the effects of changing the ambience of spaces with light and colour and creating intimate spaces for personal reflection in contrast to the environment required for corporate worship.  This included the use of focal points, artwork and music and user participation. Even small differences in how participants approached the activities were interesting. The engineer in the group would use a brown pen to draw the building as literally as he could, whereas the artist in the group used colour and sketching to express what might enhance the space.

The differences between the groups representing a place of worship and the professional ‘buddies’ allocated to their respective tables was interesting. The groups focused on the liturgy, the various uses of the space and the interplay of different generations being involved together, whereas the professionals focused on the physical aspects of creating exciting and sympathetic spaces and the fabric required to promote a better experience. Common themes emerged, including flexibility and the extended use of the building throughout the weekly programme, which can help preserve the long-term sustainability of the buildings and ultimately the communities that they serve. The groups representing a place of worship also shared some discussion points that had emerged within their congregations to explore further. For example, when exploring opinions regarding the removal of pews from the sanctuary in favour of loose seating, the adults at one church recognised the advantages of flexibility, while their children surprised them by saying they liked the pews because they felt the security of being together as a family in their own pew!

The feedback from delegates was very positive as people were engaging together from different viewpoints and using new tools that made them more aware of their environment from a new perspective to inform the design of their immediate projects. The workshop proved of value to us at CBRT because it provided new tools that we can use in our annual conference as we interact with many other church and community groups seeking to extend the use of their places of worship for the future. Finding new ways of under-writing the capital and revenue costs of running successful community facilities that serve congregations and the wider community can also be explored if people are inspired about the possibilities. It promotes the involvement of local and national agencies in supporting local communities when many central funding sources are being withdrawn or made accessible in different ways.  For example, many churches are now being used to provide health, fitness, and even post office services, as well as partnering with nurseries and schools providing different but suitable venues for performance, music and art functions. 
 
This is the core vision of the Church Building Renewal Trust as we try to bring together precedented successful projects with struggling non-empowered communities to inspire them to the full potential of their assets in the form of their buildings and properties. New ways of funding can then be explored and as a committee we found the day encouraged us to think about using the tools and methods being developed in the research programme of the Empowering Design Practices project. We greatly appreciated the input and collaboration with the project and hope it proves to be an ongoing partnership that can be of mutual benefit in practical ways as we all move forward together.
 
Colin McNeish FRIAS is Chairman of the Church Buildings Renewal Trust

By Lizzy Levy

The ‘Mission Impossible’ was: to get away to London for a design training course, to leave three teenagers about to go back to school, sixth form and art foundation, plus one dog and a husband. Technically, this should have been doable. But this was no easy task, and in the office work was piling in as I’d just come back from a much needed annual break. All our groups were coming back into Church and there were requests coming thick and fast with Heritage Day too. I boarded a train to London on Monday 11th September rather frazzled and stressed!

The trip was immensely enlightening and I feel truly blessed to have been offered this opportunity. Not only did the course open our eyes to the amazing architectural possibilities, it enabled us to broaden our perspective on ‘looking outwards’, considering the greater needs of ‘community’. Two of the churches we visited were servicing the needs of the wider community and their approach was radically different. These places were ‘open’ churches, where the public could access the spaces at almost any time. 

Bromley by Bow warmly welcomed us showing us their centre that had no CCTV and encouraged the public to enjoy their spaces, whether to visit the health centre, church, gardens, cafe or workshops etc. The quote from their website banner (www.bbbc.org.uk) states:
​
“I urge you to take your colleagues down to the Bromley by Bow Centre and let them see what has emerged from nothing. It is one of the most impressive displays of social entrepreneurship anywhere in Europe.”
- Lord Brian Mawhinney

St Paul’s Old Ford (www.stpauloldford.com) was also really radical in the fact that they had a pod type space constructed within the church sanctuary called “The Ark”. This serviced the needs of the community including a gym on the top floor designed for those with disabilities. Their motto states: “Seeking to serve God by transforming lives and helping community flourish”.

The course was run by the Empowering Design Practices project and the facilitators were really helpful and encouraging. Their approach made everyone feel valued and no question or opinion was dismissed. I think this approach mirrored the ethos of the churches we had encountered on our study visit, who had listened to the needs of their congregations and wider community when (re)designing their buildings. 

Most importantly, our church community, in all its wonderful diversity, will be encouraged to get involved via expressing their own ideas for our future. We look forward to sharing our experiences and the work we did on the course including mind mapping and a scale model of Cemetery Road Baptist Church. We encourage our community to look out for further details coming soon explaining how they can help!

Mark 4: 30-32
Again he said, “What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it? It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground. Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade.”

Lizzy Levy is Church Administrator at Cemetery Road Baptist Church, an ethnically diverse and vibrant place of worship in the Sharrow area of Sheffield. The church is a Grade II listed building with a distinctive two-spire facade and forms part of a large complex of faith and community spaces owned and run by the church. Five members of Cemetery Road Baptist Church attended the Design Training course held by the Empowering Design Practices project in London from 12-13 September 2017 to help build their design skills, knowledge and confidence and explore ideas for improving their building. 

A version of this post was originally shared in their Church newsletter.

By Sara Crofts and Liz Ellis

Walking slowly along the River Lea, gazing at abstract paintings by Mark Rothko, admiring the craftsmanship of the lofty stone vaults at Hexham Abbey... Just a few of the experiences of some of the heritage assets and sites providing reflection and peace every day across the United Kingdom. Heritage leaders often focus on the story-telling potential of a historic building or the particular landscape or the specific objects displayed. What is less often discussed is how significant heritage and cultural engagement is for us all in supporting - and extending - our experiences of ourselves and each other.

Faith leaders are familiar with individuals and families seeking out the church, temple, mosque or synagogue to celebrate new life and love - and also to grieve and mourn. Faith sites offer spaces for non-believers to be made welcome, to be curious and to rest as well as to pray. Gallery and museum staff  are perhaps currently less well recognised as providers of  opportunities to explore complex, and potentially difficult, feelings and experiences through events and activities.

Whether exploring the legacy of conflict and imperialism through artefacts at Tate Britain or inviting discussion of faith and equality at Cartwright Hall, gallery and museum staff and volunteers actively use collections to support connections between ourselves and the contemporary world around us. Similarly, visitors of all ages to RSPB Minsmere in Suffolk have shared with Heritage Lottery Fund how important this beautiful site is in providing a sense of calm or maybe contentment or even happiness during difficult periods of ill health and supporting life changes through disability, unemployment or other challenging experiences.

Recognising the differences in all of these sites of course is important, but we suggest it is also vital to recognise the value of human relationships and connections which all these places enable and have in common. Welcoming people to a nature reserve or a faith site requires skills and resources and acknowledges that how we greet each other and how we make the ‘stranger’ feel at ease is core to our experience of being human.

Most of us have had experiences of entering a building or a social context where we don’t know anybody; what happens next often then decides how long we stay and how we feel when we leave. Increasingly, those who look after faith sites are seizing opportunities to extend the welcome to new visitors curious to learn about the abbey, mosque, temple etc. We think that there is much that can be learned from those who have a similar role in secular spaces.

So we’re suggesting that now is the time to share resources and community capabilities. We propose that that the sacred space of buildings associated with faith and the contemplative, reflective opportunities of many other heritage sites offer fruitful connections in the years ahead. The current focus on the importance of wellbeing and the role that heritage can play here, provides contemporary relevance for all of us involved in the next steps in community building, whether starting within faith or cultural contexts.

These shared opportunities bring benefits to a wider range of people and can bring communities together who have been previously distanced, whilst keeping the sites vivid, relevant and informed by contemporary needs and human experience.

Sara Crofts is Head of Historic Environment at Heritage Lottery Fund and Liz Ellis is Policy Advisor Communities and Diversity. Heritage Lottery Fund is a partner in the Empowering Design Practices project.

post by Katerina Alexiou

This was a truly bustling and industrious summer for EDP. The last two posts in this blog reflected on the Design Training delivered in Manchester and two themed workshops focused on the role and potential of faith buildings to serve their communities. My last activity before going away for the summer was a workshop at the Ely Cathedral Conference Centre, which brought together 22 participants from 8 different churches, mainly located in rural areas, who are currently developing plans to repair and update their buildings to increase their use.
 
The workshop aimed to help participants reflect on their assets, challenges and opportunities, share experiences, learn from completed projects and get a taste of some of the activities used in EDP to support people to think about the design of their place and their project.
 
We had run a similar workshop right at the beginning of our research, with 8 different places of worship who travelled to London Lumen from different parts of England for this exchange. This workshop, however, was focused on the particular geographical area around Ely, and the churches were introduced to us through Geoffrey Hunter who acts as Church Buildings Consultant for this Diocese. We also invited participants from the Great Bavington United Reformed Church (in Northumberland), who shared common characteristics and challenges with churches in the Diocese of Ely, despite coming from a completely different geographic area.
 
The assets, challenges and opportunities exercise
The first part of the workshop is an intensive exercise which helps groups identify challenges that stand in their way and immerse themselves in the roots of those challenges, but also gradually moves to a position where they start unearthing assets and coming up with ideas or ways in which their assets can help them overcome those challenges. Key to this exchange is having another group act as critical friends, helping their peers to externalise and clarify their thoughts and visions, often providing advice, creative input and inspiration. The exercise has two rounds, and people rotate around the tables, so that every group has an opportunity to explore their project, as well as act as a critical friend to another.

​Some of the key challenges that the participants identified were understandably related to their location, such as not being visible, not having good access routes, being a long distance away, having a sparse local population. Some churches felt there was an element of competition with other churches who may be in a similar position in the area. Consequently, due to having a small congregation and small local population, participants found funding, and even the prospect of applying for it, extremely difficult.
 
Despite those challenges, all groups considered their small, but dedicated congregations as their key asset: a small number of people who invest their skills and determination to help achieve their mission.  Participants were also aware of the importance and potential of their buildings as historic places to be a focal point in their community. Key opportunities identified were establishing collaboration with local schools and other institutions active in the area and taking advantage of their local surroundings, footpaths, heritage trails etc. 

​Inspirational material and taster workshops
The assets, challenges and opportunities exercise was followed by an inspiration presentation where we shared some examples of projects and interventions that we have come to learn about through our site visits to completed refurbishment or reordering cases. This led to a final session of taster workshops, where participants had the opportunity to explore different themes: demystifying design, mapping assets, harnessing conflicts and fundraising.

This was a really intense workshop, and at the end of the day I felt tired but grateful to the participants who were describing their experience of the day as "inspirational", "useful", "encouraging" and "empowering".
 
We have taken the challenges, assets and opportunities workshop to quite a few places so far: apart from Lumen and Ely, also to churches in Chester and Congleton, to Bow Church and to the Israac Somali Cultural and Community Association in Sheffield.
 
As well as being a vehicle for groups to reflect on what they have and what needs to be done, the feedback we have received suggests that the exercise really helps people to feel that they are not alone in their struggle to make things better for their building, their congregation and their community.

​

post by Katerina Alexiou

Last year, members of the EDP team took part in the AHRC's 2016 Connected Communities Research Festival, which was focused on the theme of Community Futures and Utopias, celebrating 500 years from Thomas More’s publication.

The Prototyping Utopias project, led by EDP partners The Open University and The Glass-House Community Led Design, built on our relationship with Bow Church and connections with other local organisations in Bow: Bow Arts, Bromley by Bow Centre and Poplar HARCA. The project was partly an experimentation on how a historic place of worship can be used to catalyse connections in the wider community, but it had a broader objective to explore community utopias, and how the connections people have in their own places frame their future aspirations and can lead to the emergence of new visions and actions.
 
We were fortunate to also collaborate with three artists who have lived and worked in the area, Paul Burgess, Emma Crouch and Simon Daw. Outputs from the activities were shared at a major public exhibition, the Utopia Fair at Somerset House in central London, between 24th and 26th June 2016.
 
Following the Fair, I was involved in an AHRC catalyst fund application led by Deirdre Figueiredo, Director of Craftspace, which brought together three projects present at the Fair: Maker-Centric, Life Chances and our own Prototyping Utopias.
 
At the end of June we all met in Soho House (former home of the manufacturer Matthew Boulton) in Birmingham, to talk about and experience each other's projects; share the theoretical concepts we used to approach the theme of community utopias and the processes we used to engage people from local communities; and explore the outputs and learning produced. 

It was a constructive and rich experience and I took away several observations and ideas for further exploration. Here are some key summarising points:
 
We approached the subject of utopia from different disciplinary starting points or lenses. The Maker-Centric project saw utopia through the lens of heritage and embarked on exploring the past as a catalyst for future thinking. The Prototyping Utopias project used the lens of design, and explored how dreaming can help explore and develop ideas for future realities. Life Chances saw utopia from a social science perspective and used creative disruption as a vehicle for creating novel futures.
 
Despite those different starting points there were many commonalities between the projects. They all saw the past as a foundation but also limitation for the future, which necessitated an effort to re-examine, re-construct and to a certain extent let free of the past. They all paid particular attention to place and the specificity of the local context in which project activities were carried out. They all also focussed methodologically on making and acting, as vehicles for helping engage people from diverse communities in utopian thinking.
 
It was also interesting to see the different configurations of working between academics, practitioners, artists and community participants adopted in each case, all however agreeing on the benefits of collaboration in research, design, and action, and the richness of knowledge and outputs resulting from the process.
 
For me, the most affecting aspect of this exploration of community utopias was exactly the emotional engagement of people with this question and the realisation that we dream the same dreams of peace, equality, diversity, opportunity and respect for each other and for the planet. But we all strive to realise them differently in our locations and contexts through, mostly, small steps.

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.