Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The design of the new West Cummington Congregational Church began with studying the responses of the congregation, the history of the Church, and the historic context in which the original building was built. The question at hand was, "What should this building be?"
My sense is that there are a number of fundamental ways to answer that question.
The first would be to replace the building as it was, using the numerous photographs and memories of the congregation. I believe that there is enough information to do this well. New items would be incorporated as invisibly as possible.
The second approach would be to reproduce the exterior of the building, incorporating minor adjustments, and redesigning the interior to reflect current requirements, in a manner that is both modern and sympathetic to the historic image of the building. I liken this to a building that has an historic designation in which the exterior is protected and the interior is subject to change to meet current needs.
The third approach would be to design an entirely new and different building, inside and out, with entirely different material, details and image. This building might reference the old building, but through color and proportion, rather than through actual appearance.
An approach of which I am skeptical, is one that attempts to make a "somewhat traditional" and "somewhat modern" building. To me this would invoke an arbitrary choice of image and material, without the freedom to invent an entirely new building.
Having studied the comments of the congregation, the documents relating to the original building, and the code and program requirements for a new building, and having considered the place of the building in the village, it seems to me that the most appropriate approach is the second one; to design the building with an exterior which is essentially the same as it was, and with an entirely new interior, using the "bridge" of simplicity to span between the historic and the modern condition. The most remarked upon qualities of the old building are light and sound, and these qualities and nuances can be incorporated into the new building by design and careful study.
greetings all - my thoughts on the pew configuration: i would prefer the three pew arrangement for the possibilities it allows in using the space - whether it's forming a smaller circle during communion, or allowing for more movement and flow of bodies (i'm specifically recalling the palm sunday where steve re-enacted christ riding his donkey into jerusalem - steve of course played the ass :)
ReplyDelete- chris galanis
best wishes for the new year, and often thinking of you all from my new home in new mexico
I prefer the two isles, as we had in the church previously.
ReplyDeleteAs one who sat next to the window every Sunday I was there, the ability to do so was an important part of my Sunday spiritual experience. My experience was made up of the words from Steve, to the simplicity of the space, to feeling community and to the connection of the outdoors where the outside felt as if it was in and as if the inside felt as if it were outside, with the importance of each element differing from Sunday to Sunday.
The old pew format allowed for different experiences within the same space – as if separate microzones. One could be close to others or be apart, while still being among others, but not removed – both providing community.
I feel that the proposed side isle would change the experience in the church in two ways. First, the side isles with center isle configuration, being three isles, would decrease the seating space in the sloped-floor area pew space, resulting in people having less space and opportunity to be apart from others. Secondly, the two side isles along the walls create a physical barrier to the outdoors. In order to take in the outdoors in the way that one could previously, one would really need to turn to the windows.
The options report showed that the church's windows were extremely important for many people. The windows were mentioned for multiple reasons, the way they let the light in and for allowing one to look out the windows.
With our congregation’s eclectic experiences of what church is, I think most people would agree that the church building did and will serve our community as sanctuary to many different people in many different ways, all within the same service.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment -- I prefer the two isle as we had.