Susana Rojas Saviñón. Housing Social Demands: The Church of England.

HOUSING SOCIAL DEMANDS The Church of England

Susana Rojas Saviñón

ARCHITECTURAL ASSOCIATION SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

ARCHITECTURAL ASSOCIATION SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

Graduate School programme

Taught Master of Philosophy in Architecture and Urban Design Projective Cities course tutors

Dr Sam Jacoby Dr Platon Issaias external advisors

Dr Maria S. Giudici Dr Mark Campbell dissertation title

Housing Social Demands The Church of England student name

Susana Rojas Saviñón submission date

25th of May 2018 declaration

I certify that this piece of work is entirely my own and that any quotation or paraphrase from the published or unpublished work of others is duly acknowledged.

signature

Abstract

The purpose of this dissertation is to question the role of the English religious institution in the twenty-first century. It demonstrates how the Church of England, as the state church has a remarkable architectural heritage, an incomparable socio-political and economic power, and more importantly, social and moral responsibility. Through this potential, the Anglican Church can ameliorate public services and social conditions, as well as progress design and research practice through its continuous innovation of architectural typologies and urban interventions.

The institution’s territorial prominence through its land division and emblematic church-buildings has been favourable for the successful management of the institution’s continuous charitable network. By taking advantage of this existing multi-scalar approach, this dissertation proposes the provision of collective infrastructure of housing, education and healthcare. Taking the Church’s original purpose of housing social needs, the proposed network of Parish Centres intends to service the public realm.

This design proposal is based on historical precedents of the English religious institution within the present socio-political context, through a methodological analysis of case studies. The main aim is to envision how can the Church provide adequate services and infrastructure for the necessities of the present-day society.

Acknowledgements

I wish to express profound gratitude to those who supported me in the process of this dissertation. Beginning with my tutor Sam Jacoby, whose invaluable critique improved the quality of my research; his persistence, understanding and good humour have been hugely significant. I would also like to thank Platon Issaias for his challenging attitude and feedback, as well as, Mark Campbell and Maria Giudici for their assistance during the initial stages of this work. I would also like to acknowledge my fellow peers - Lucia Alonso, Ricardo Palma, Gaston Navarro, RaĂźl Avilla and Vasav Vakilna, for their incredible enthusiasm and kindness. Together with the shared energy of JosĂŠ Ignacio Vargas, Talia Davidi, Dario Marcobelli, Seythan Ozer, Claudio Nieto, Ilias Oikonomakis, Suchendra Akula, as well as, Huajing Wen and Gianna Botemma, with whom I was lucky enough to coincide. I am extremely grateful to the Architectural Association for being the foundation of endless inspiration, making not only these encounters possible but also financing part of my studies through the AA Bursary.

These acknowledgments would not be complete without mentioning the support of my friends in London, Mexico or elsewhere, whose love is always present. A special thanks to those who selflessly shared their knowledge and observations in the development of this work: Karrish Devan, Jackie van Dael and Erika Moreno, their generosity is enormously valuable. In other respects, this work would not have been possible without the encouragement of my family, specially my dad Alejandro Rojas to whom I am immensely grateful; over and above his endless support is his shared confidence in me. Finally, I must acknowledge my partner, Hortense Blanchard for her incredible passion, insights and patience this dissertation is dedicated to her.

Table of Contents Abstract Acknowledgements The Church of Today 13 As an Introduction part one

The Institution and its Territory 17 A National Church 21 Demarcation of Land 25 Emergence of a Corporation 29 Development Model 43 part two

The Role of the Church 49 The Role of Religion 50 A new era of Evangelization 56 The Church as a Social Institution 60 St. Luke’s Parish Centre 71 part three

The Role of the Architecture 149 Transformative Church-buildings 151 Protestant Church Transformations 165 Historic Case Studies 181 Design Guidelines 233

The Church of Tomorrow 237 As a Conclusion Bibliography Appendix

The Church of Today As an Introduction

The Church of England (CofE) has a privileged position from three perspectives: socio-political, territorial and economic. It has not become disestablished because it is historically rooted within government; as the state church its structure is intertwined with that of the nation. Presently, twenty-six bishops sit in the House of Lords and the monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, holds the position of Supreme Governor of the religious institution. As to territorial authority, the Church introduced the first formal demarcation of the land, the parochial model, by which it acquired knowledge of the land and income through taxation. To this day, not only does the church have territorial control, but it also holds a prominent role as a landowner. This has granted the Church an economic advantage over public and private entities, allowing it to have a recognisable architectural and urban inhabitance.

So is the case of its historic church-buildings which have strongly shaped the nation’s identity and continue to influence the cultural spectrum of society. Nevertheless, the CofE cannot sustain itself solely on those foundations. The relevance of the institution in question for the contemporary demographics is recurrently challenged. Its present ambiguous stand as to ethical concerns such as women bishops, abortion or gay marriage, besides its inability to appeal to the majority of the population has raised claims for its disestablishment. For these reasons, it is becoming increasingly difficult to justify the constitutional link between church and state in both a multi-faith and largely irreligious society.

Furthermore, the CofE is financially constrained to the maintenance of its 16,000 costly churchbuildings (all of which have cultural relevance and unquestioned architectural value), in addition to the expenses of the whole organisation, which in 2017 amounted to £1bn. Regardless of the CofE’s prominent present condition, and its well-known proficiency as a real-estate corporation, the downfall of its adherents threatens its disappearance, as main providers of the institution’s income.

To contest these issues, the CofE began in 2017 the implementation of a scheme called Renewal & Reform aiming to overcome the decline of its members. This is a programme based on a financial strategy to re-direct funds into dioceses which promote Church growth and are able to tender a new evangelization purpose. Therefore, far from an institutional transformation, the Church is aiming at reforming the public. Evidently, the misconstruction of this approach comes from the fact that the institution’s fundamental potential is disregarded.

The favourable history of the Church comes from its involvement in social causes, its contribution of services and infrastructure for public benefit apparent in its architectural legacy. It has been a pioneer in developing strong architectural typologies that we now consider part of the ordinary. Even before the state, the Church was an early provider of spaces relating to basic needs such as housing, education and healthcare, which were progressively institutionalized by secular entities. This capacity to 13

provide such services is not different from its present status, alongside its underlying moral and ethical agenda. This is a largely overlooked aspect, visible through the CofE’s current, and often unperceivable, involvement in the built environment. That is, in association with local councils and housing associations where its provision of housing and other living amenities is no different from profitdriven models. Consequently, the possibility of its re-emergence during the course of the twenty-first century as a socio-spatial institution lies in its ability to combine its ideological pre-condition of charity with changing social necessities, a union that in the past has resulted in unique briefs. Therefore, the present interest in the CofE for this dissertation, apart from its historic legacy (architectural and cultural), comes from its prevailing potential to develop distinctive architecture.

To that end, it is essential to recognise the sum between the CofE’s public authority of a religious institution and an established Church, borne out by its moral and social function and the responsibility that such status entails. The CofE’s potential to provide public services is also a response to the urgency of the present conditions, both of the institution, but also of contemporary society. This can be observed firstly at a national level with the renowned crises of housing provision and the welfare-state, and secondly, through, the consequences of a neoliberal regime – exclusion, loneliness and isolation.

Property developers contribute to these factors and the government so far has been unable to provide an effective approach. Additionally to these conditions, the institution’s growing financial instability, has come as a consequence of the Church’s inability to appoint its relevance for the present-day challenges.

Therefore, the CofE must re-invent itself and engage in more diverse and multiple ways with people. This dissertation advances the premise that the unique characteristics that form the religious institution in England - socio-political influence, territorial

authority and economic advantage - serve as the consolidating elements to appoint its enduring relevance, if aided by its renewed potential founded on its historic trajectory. The Church once more has the possibility to assume a moral leadership role for the provision of much needed alternatives for the twenty-first century demands. The disciplinary question of this dissertation is thus: Can the Church of England re-establish itself as a public and social institution by providing collective infrastructure fit for contemporary necessities?

In order to address this question and grasp the Church of England’s potential at the scale of the nation, this dissertation will outline specific historic precedents within the contemporary context. It will begin with an analysis of the current plans of the religious institution in a socio-political framework and its urban and architectural translation through selected examples. Subsequently, the research will examine the changing role of religion and its effects, and possibilities for the religious institution. This will be followed by an examination of the diverse roles of the institution contrasted with urban and architectural precedents, through a methodological analysis of case studies. The projective nature of this dissertation includes a design aspect, through which it aims to open a discursive debate within design and research-based architecture practice in regards to the possibilities of the English religious institution to develop forthcoming architectural typologies.

15

part one

The Institution and its Territory

image

View of the City of London, St. Paul’s Cathedral and Christchurch.

Crawfords, David. The City of London, its Architectural Heritage. WoodheadFaulkner Ltd, 1976, p.81

This first section will approach the historic and territorial aspect of the CofE as an institution. Beginning with its origin during the course of the English Reformation – and how through political decisions the CofE became embedded in the culture of the nation and make it a particular kind of institution. Followed by the Church’s spatial importance through its protagonist presence in the urban fabric, but more importantly on account of its vast territorial acquisition in comparison to other European countries. Its advantaged position from a political and financial perspective highlights its distinctive potential as a prominent developer.

Moreover, the causes that transformed it into a real estate corporation will be outlined, as well as its contemporary ambitions. In a concluding manner, this section will end with preliminary observations followed by a propositional development model for the CofE. 17

A National Church

T

he Church of England is conceivably a unique case in comparison to other religious institutions across Europe.

This condition is related to the way in which it was constructed from its beginning. The main difference lays in the fact that it was made to be national, and therefore Anglican. The Church of England was founded by Henry VIII in the 16th century, in desertion from the Roman Catholic Church. The consensus for this separation are the direct causes of the time: In the first place, there’s the King’s obsession with conceiving a male heir to secure his succession - by terminating his first marriage to Catherine of Aragon, which was an unconceivable act under the authority of the pope. On the other hand, there was the disastrous state of royal finances (subsequently discussed). However, a series of episodes from the previous centuries had previously enabled the possibilities for this breach, such as the murder of Archbishop Beckett in the 12th century or the anti-papal legislation of the 14th by Edward II, both of which illustrate the ongoing ‘troubled relation of the English monarch with Rome in the context of rising nationalism’.1 All of which was augmented by the perpetual abuses and corruption from the Catholic Church, as well as, the rise of Protestantism.2 On that matter, John Wyclif, who was a forerunner of Luther’s and Calvin’s beliefs a century and a half earlier, recurrently exposed the incompetence of the clergy and stressed the idea of a direct relation between man and God, thus challenging the role of the religious authority. The combination of such motives - some specific to England and others widespread in Christian nations - led to the irreversible 1530s events of the English Reformation, which transformed English society and constructed a particular kind of state Church.

image

Portrait of Henry VIII

One of the most remarkable characteristics of this newly formed church was its institutional adaptability. A quality enabled by its configuration, beginning with its direct dependence on the nation’s ruler; ever since Henry VIII appointed himself the Supreme Governor of the new the institution and its territory

19

Church, religion in the country has been adapting to the personal beliefs of the ruling monarch. In the following years of the Reformation, it was contemplated that Protestantism would be the new faith and even if some parts of Luther’s thesis were integrated as a compromise between reformers and conservatives with the king’s approval, that was not entirely the case; in regard to liturgy, there was no major change and the remaining years of Henry’s reign have been described as ‘Catholicism without the Pope’. Similar compromises had to be made a few decades later, during the Elizabethan Era, when England was facing a religious and political crisis. Three parties were battling over the control of the Church: Roman Catholics, Protestants and those in favour of an Anglican Church. The latter’s most influential representative was Richard Hooker, a priest and theologian, whose work Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity located the Church as a middle road (via media), between Puritanism and Roman Catholicism, stating that the CofE should be at once Catholic and Reformed. Therefore, this particular Church was set out to be unique – a mixture incorporating liturgy, nationalism, and institutional adaptability depending on the time period and the monarch in charge.

The CofE’s adaptive feature continued to be reinforced through time, one case in point being the term ‘Broad Church’, which was formally accepted in 1888. Broad Church Christianity, founded by F. D. Maurice, J. M. Ludlow and Charles Kingsley, viewed the Christian doctrine from a liberal perspective and stated that the Church ‘should be comprehensive and tolerant, so as to admit more or less variety of opinion in matters of dogma and ritual’.3 This progressive status of the Church continued to be refined during the course of the 20th century. Although this was expressly through the creation of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline in 1904, assigned to assess the irregularities of practice and emit recommendations to eradicate them, nonetheless, its final report encouraged increased tolerance and urged extended flexibility in the Book of Prayer.4 What is more, the years of 1965 to 1980 were the zenith of a national church

20

liturgical experimentation, whereby rather than imposing a new liturgy, each parish was given absolute freedom in regard to the Eucharist.

Accordingly, the Alternative Service Book had three versions to choose from (series 1, 2 and 3), a decision that reflected the Church’s effort to embrace diversity and modernity. The Anglican liturgy became so unpredictable that a church-goers guide was published in 1982 offering information about the type of worship given by a particular parish.5 All of these factors confirm once more the continuous accessibility of the institution.

notes

1. Picton, Hervé́. A short history of the Church of England: from the Reformation to the present day. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015, p.01 2. The Protestant Reformation commonly considered to be initiated

by Martin Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses against the Catholic Church in Germany from its publication in 1517 until the end of the Thirty Year’s War in 1648.

3. Picton, Hervé́. A short history of the Church of England: from the Reformation to the present day. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015, p.105 4. Ibid., p.122 5. Ibid., p.123

The fact that the CofE not only in the past decades but throughout its history has been increasing its diversity in the fields of doctrine and liturgy is of significant value. Whereas the Church has found itself struggling with the heterogeneity of its followers, it has responded reasonably by becoming diverse itself to the effect that their ‘one-fits-all’ liturgy and doctrinal vagueness can be claimed to be precisely what has preserved its unity to this day. As Hervé Picton (2015) concluded: ‘The identity of the Church lies in its original approach which, using Scripture as a starting point, seeks to adapt faith to the realities of the modern world without rejecting tradition.’ More than that, it is that unspoken institutional openness and flexibility that uniquely characterize the CofE to this day.

As a national church, the CofE is accustomed to reposition itself in significant social matters, apart from its religious role. Accordingly, such anticipated institutional modifications are conducive to the foundation of the proposed re-establishment of the CofE as a public and social institution presented in this dissertation.

the institution and its territory

21

Demarcation of Land

Provinces

Dioceses

Parishes

The object which men aim at when they become possessed of land in the British Isles may, I think, be enumerated as follows. One, political influence; two, social importance, founded on territorial possession, the most visible and unmistakable form of wealth; three, power exercised over tenantry; the pleasure of managing, directing and improving the estate itself; four, residential enjoyment, including what is called sport; five, the money return - the rent.

- Edward Henry Stanley, 15th Earl of Derby.

Monarch

Archbishop

Rector

Cathedral

Church

32%

52%

image

Territorial and political structure of the Church of England with hierarchical configuration.

Dioceses & Cathedrals

In addition to the aforementioned institutional liberty of the Church, this section will look into the CofE’s material assets, which grant it another kind of power: economic and political. The primary purpose, as well as the most tangible and immediate consequence of the English Reformation was related to the second direct reason for the schism, previously stated – the fatal state of royal finances, which the monarch mended by taking over the territory. Therefore, it could be affirmed that the major spatial consequence of the English Reformation was the dramatic redistribution of power over the territory, for religious belief broadly remained unchanged. In order to firmly constitute the new established Church apart from Papal authority, the king Henry VIII and his chancellor Thomas Cromwell, the Earl of Essex, laid the foundation for the administrative and legislative process that led to the Suppression of the Monasteries from 1536 to 1541 in England, Wales and Ireland.

The dissolution of religious houses permitted those pieces of land to be bestowed to the king and his close acquaintances.6 The transition was supported by legislation; the king was able to impose his sovereignty since any act of resistance was considered treason and punished accordingly. In addition to the existing pledges by members of the religious institutions, which now served royal authority, such as the vow of obedience. Distinct from the Protestant Reformation, the aim in Britain was not to transform the religious practice but to control it internally under an independent administration - hence retaining the territory, appropriating their income and disposing of their assets.

Parish Income the institution and its territory

23

notes

6. In 1533 Henry VIII, in order to persuade his subjects against Catholicism, gave the lands of the Catholic Church and its monasteries to his followers and barons willing to accept the new Church and impose it in their local districts.

7. Millard, Percy William. The Law Relating to Tithes, and Payments in Lieu.

Thereof. London: Butterworth & Co., 1938, p.01 8. Kain, R. J. P., and Richard R. Oliver. The Tithe Maps of England and Wales: A Cartographic Analysis and County-by-County Catalogue.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011, p.01

Prior to the nations’ political boundaries, the Church mapped the territory to its adequacy in direct relation to the structure of its government.

Distinct from England’s present political division of England of nine regions, the Church divided the territory into two provinces: the southern Province of Canterbury and the northern Province of York, a condition that remains until today. While each province has its own representative under the title of archbishop, both fall under the direct mandate of the monarch, whose function is still the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Consequently, the following administrative and political demarcation for the country is that of counties, which may differ from the comparable political districts and therefore can be composed of multiple ones. Therefore, parallel to the political demarcation of the land, the parochial model is still in place. Nowadays, the CofE recognises the internal division of the provinces to consist of 42 dioceses, 12 for the Province of York and 30 for Canterbury, each with its own cathedral and its own authority - the bishop. Subsequently, each diocese is divided into parishes; for instance, 413 parishes each one with at least one parish church and a parish priest - usually called a vicar or rector - together with St. Paul’s Cathedral make up the Diocese of London. The consequence of this historic appropriation of the territory effectively demonstrates the power that the Church had at the scale of the nation, and which remains until this point in time.

The acquisition of territory for the Church of England, however, did not only mean political power but also income. The mapping of the territory in accordance with a parochial system was, without doubt, put in place for reasons of tithing. Tithes were a payment based on land occupation for the provision of services supported by legislation; traditionally, it consisted of the ten per cent of produce of a farmer paid to the rector of the parish.

They were classified into predial, mixed and personal tithes. The first came from products of agriculture, the second from animals fed from the land and the third was in relation to human labour, all of which were paid demarcation of land

24

image

Parochial Plan of the City of London, 1870. Lithograph, London Metropolitan Archives image next page

Map of the Parishes of London, 1894. Lithograph, London Metropolitan Archives

in kind. The exact ‘time and manner’ of the introduction to the practice of paying tithes ‘and the purposes to which they were originally devoted has been subject of much controversy.’7 This controversy questioned the rightfulness of such payments, and discontents was expressed through violence and tax evasion - both punishable by the courts. In order to control this situation, the Tithe Commutation Act of 1836 was developed, which substituted payment of kind for money ‘according to the type and value of land’8. The importance of this modification lies in the fact that to be able to calculate the monetary tax, a detailed survey of property within the parishes had to be made. Due to those circumstances, it was the Church of England that produced the first formal mapping of the territory: the tithe maps. This position - the right to map - additionally enabled the institution to acquire knowledge of the land – another kind of power. the institution and its territory

25

Emergence of a Corporation

The Church owned property for the provision of premises for its various activities such as worship, education, accommodation of clergy and as a source of income for the clergy, maintenance of buildings, education and evangelistic activities and administration. The ownership of property also gave the church for many centuries cultural, economic and political influence.9 - Extract from Lambeth Palace Library Research Guide for Church Property

image

Greaves, Mark. God’s management consultants: the Church of England turns to bankers for salvation. The Spectator, July 2015. Web. Accessed June 2017

The power that the Church of England has gained through the territory is what has enabled it to survive until this day. From the time of the English Reformation, when internal government took over the institution, it was through the tithing system that the Church obtained its main economic support. Considering that the territory was organised through the parochial model, and goods or monetary contributions were compulsory, the parishioners constituted its economic foundation.

Furthermore, this period allowed for the largest acquisition of land in the history of the institution, which was generally convenient and practical to have. Nevertheless, its real importance was not acknowledged until the 20th century with the gradual abolition of tithes. The major repercussion of this transition was that society’s financial contribution to the Church became voluntary - in the shape of donations - and independent from the parishioner’s land. This shift diminished the importance of parishioners as landowners and transmuted that mode of income to the individual, a condition that continues to affect the CofE to this day - following the decline of its members. This, complemented by the fact that some of its churches were selected under the protection system of listed buildings defined as historical heritage of the country, worsened the financial state.

Such instability forced the Church to reconsider its role as a landowner and make of its territory a prosperous source of income. the institution and its territory

29

12%

6%

0%

2007

graph

Church Commissioners Total Returns

75% Worshippers

16% C. C.

Total Cost to Finance the CofE Church Commissioners in comparison to voluntary income.

notes

9. Lambeth Palace Library. Lambeth Palace Library Research Guide for Church Property., p.02 10. The Church of England. Church Commissioners Investment Property. Web. May 2017 11. Vessière, Gèraldine. Who owns London? Web. October 2013 12. Boyle, Catherine. "How much land does the Church of England own?" The Guardian. April 2006 Web. May 2017 13. Davie, Grace. Religion in Modern Britain: A Persistent Paradox. 2nd ed., Wiley Blackwell, 2015. 1st. Edition 1994., p.93

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

The clearest precedent in regard to the CofE as a recognizable landowner came from the historic glebeland, which was land given to the parishes by the monarch so that the priest could gain some financial support through agricultural production or lease. In addition, he would receive a parsonage a parcel of land in relation to the church building where he would usually live, both of which continue to be part of the CofE’s property portfolio.

Also, in 1704, its first periodic purchases of land were commissioned by ‘Queen Ann’s Bounty’ scheme, which aimed to augment the incomes of the poorer clergy through newly acquired territory that was either purchased or obtained through donations. This procurement came in handy following the first Tithe Act of 1918, which made provision for the redemption of tithes on a period not exceeding 50 years. Although they were not fully extinguished until the Finance Act of 1977, it could be argued that the CofE unknowingly, had been preparing the grounds for the occasion. The most explicit operation was perhaps, the creation of the Church Commissioners in 1948 as a precaution following its growing interest in the management of its own holdings. On that account, the sum of these antecedents slowly transformed the CofE into a real estate corporation.

Nowadays, the CofE’s investment property portfolio is owned and managed by the Church Commissioners. They are a charity that works independently from the CofE and their role is to provide funds for the support of clergy, mission activities and diocesan support. Assets include 16,000 churches (two thirds of which are listed) in England and 120,000 acres of farmland across England and Wales (the largest track of which is found in cathedral cities such as Canterbury and York), as well as parsonages, churchyards, closed churches and investment property including commercial, residential and timberland, forestry and infrastructure; forming an overall property portfolio that was valued at almost £7.9bn in 2015 with an average return of 14.4%10, without taking into account its property overseas. The London property portfolio emergence of a corporation

30

image

The Church Commissioners Office, 1966. London Metropolitan Archives

comprises over 1,800 private residences, primarily in the Hyde Park area11 and some commercial investments in the West End.12 In addition, the historic glebeland is owned by the Diocesan Board of Finance as an investment of each of the 41 dioceses. The maintenance of the parish system, the Church’s buildings and ‘the wide variety of professionals (both lay and ordained) who sustain this enterprise is a costly business and almost certainly beyond the means of the Church of England as we currently know it.’13 All together, the cost to finance the CofE as of last year was £1bn; of which only 15% is obtained via their property.

Therefore, as largely reliant as it is on the success of the management of its land, the majority of its income is acquired through the voluntary donations of its adherents. Behind this reason, the Church has been concentrating on ways of attracting new followers, one of which is its continuous role in education in order to procure support from the new generations. Moreover, its latest and boldest venture is the programme ‘Renewal & Reform’ (subsequently discussed), intended to reverse declining numbers of parishioners. the institution and its territory

31

Contemporary Examples 1

Tottenham Hale

Engine Room and St. Francis Church

Acting as a church in an age of extreme individualism. We live in a culture that recognizes individuals and institutions: individuals who are free to seek their own fulfilment, and institutions that must be mechanistically managed to optimize their efficiency as systems in delivering what individuals want. It therefore has no space for the church.14 - Jeremy Worthen, Church of England priest and Secretary for Ecumenical Relations and Theology at the Council for Christian Unity.

2

Stonegrove Estates One Stonegrove

3

Barking Rivergate Rivergate Centre

notes

14. Worthen, Jeremy. The Roots of Renewal and Reform. The Church of England. Web. January 2018

The programme Renewal & Reform was announced by the Archbishops of the CofE in January 2015. Its strategy, primarily from a budgetary nature, is to redirect all of the funds attained by the Church Commissioners to those Dioceses with promising proposals for its new direction. This position was outlined through three future goals from the General Synod of 2010.

Interestingly, the first one is ‘to serve the common good of society’, followed by its intention to ‘grow the life of the church in numbers and the depth of discipleship’ – and finally to ‘re-imagine ministry’. The last of which refers to the training of ministers in their abilities to inculcate in their congregants the value of giving, in addition to planned exponential growth. According to that account, each of the 42 diocesan strategies are entitled to national support from Renewal & Reform, as long as their scheme identifies possibilities of ‘church growth’ through sectors where ‘strategic development’ could progress into growing congregations; the funds will be made available to those that promote ‘numerical and spiritual growth’. This could be implemented in diverse ways, however, from the development perspective, two dioceses have been planning ahead: the Diocese of London responded with their programme Church Planting & Growth, where one of its core objectives is to start (or renew) 100 new worshipping communities by 2020. The intention is to plant church buildings in existing developments, in order to ‘reverse the decline of the Church of England’ and ‘become a growing church, in every region and for every generation.’ On the other hand, the Diocese of Chelmsford is looking to implement ‘New Worshipping Communities’ through new development areas with the purpose of turning ‘Housing into Community’.

These proposals have very clear urban implications. The following examples were selected in order to illustrate the current involvement of the CofE in urban development. They are the first built propositional responses since the implementation of the programme. the institution and its territory

33

1

Tottenham Hale

Elevation

By acting now, we are demonstrating that our place in the public realm is not based on historic accident nor misplaced respect for ancient institution, but upon the ability to do what no other organisation can do in forging community - The Bishop of London, Richard Chartres KCVO

Masterplan Engine Room Housing Office Space 50m.

Site Boundary

Tottenham Hale was an existing development by the Lee Valley Estate Company, where the Church Commissioners got a 500-year lease on the ground floor of one of its mixed-use buildings. The lease was acquired through the Mercer’s Company Foundation fundraising of £2.4m. This is the first prototype for the church-planting platform of the Diocese of London. Their intervention was the provision of a secular community centre, which would sometimes function as a place for worship. The success of this space for its inhabitants has led them to develop a separate building which will join together the Engine Room Community Centre and St. Francis Church, a project currently under construction. However, the existing space managed by the Church of England is placed as any other type of service within the complex with no particular architectural character or spatial quality. The Engine Room in Tottenham Hale, the first case study, is their only built example; also, it is being called the first new church in the Diocese for 40 years. the institution and its territory

35

2

Stonegrove Estates

School

Housing

Elevation

School

Masterplan One Stonegrove Housing School 50m.

Site Boundary

Stonegrove and Spur Road Estates, situated at the edge of the green belt on Church’s and council land, was a postwar public housing development built in the 1960s and 70s. Due to its poor conditions it was recently demolished and is in the process of being redeveloped (with the exception of the school) both by the London Borough of Barnet in collaboration with the Church of England, as well as the Family Mosaic Housing Association. The estate was a mixture of tower and maisonette blocks, which added up to 603 homes. Besides housing the development, it also included St. Peter’s Community Church, Church Hall, Parsonage and Community Centre, all of which are being replaced. The new urban disposition of the Church/Community Centre, called One Stonegrove (as seen in the plan) was given spatial hierarchy by being positioned in relation to the existing school. Now included in the programme are two multi-purpose halls, meeting rooms, offices, a café, a nursery and a chapel. Whereas in this case the existing development already included a Church, the planting was done through the changing character of the building, appearing more welcoming to the general public as a generic space with multifunctional facilities. the institution and its territory

37

3

Barking Riverside

Housing

Church

School

Elevation

In Barking Riverside, where the opening of a Morrison’s Local was cause for celebration, residents have been waiting for a rail link since the 1990s. The Barking Riverside development is cut off by a major road and has very few amenities, making it possibly the most isolated place to live in London.

- Matthew Carpen Carpen, Matthew. "No cafe, no pub, no doctor in London’s most isolated suburb."

The Guardian. May 2017. Web. August 2015

Masterplan Rivergate Centre Housing 50m.

Sports Hall Site Boundary

Barking Riverside is an on-going development in the former Barking Power Station closed in the 1980s, from which only the first stage is presented since it was intended to function as an independent model.

The Rivergate Centre is a community building, which includes a primary school, a place for worship, a nursery and a cafĂŠ. Its placement inside the development is in between two out of the five stages in order to serve both of them. It was built in 2011 as the beginning and attraction of the housing provision to come, one large complex of 15,500 square metres, where even if the uses are set apart by height and material difference in the architecture, the overall appearance of the building is rather pale.

Nevertheless, the pressing social critique is the fact that it includes an Anglican school and a Christian church but neglects other religions and beliefs that might accommodate some of the local inhabitants. the institution and its territory

39

This first section serves to gain some depth and clarity as to the present stand of the Church of England. It began with the fact that the CofE is part of the nation’s identity, and that the elements which have constituted it from its origins make of it an adaptable institution. Furthermore, its historical presence in the territory not only conferred it political and economic power, but it also reinforced its cultural importance. Notwithstanding, the spatial potential of the institution today comes from the fact that it continues to be a major property and landowner, as well as a successful manager – characteristics which portray a competent developer. Moreover, the Church has historically known how to use its land for socio-political power, but also social benefit. Even if today it is struggling to maintain a falling congregation, a recognition of its latent potential, evident in its historic trajectory, is of utmost importance.

character, and attempting to blend-in with generic development models. This strategy has resulted in un-propositional architecture that neither serves the institution nor society. In spite of the monumental financial restructuring, all of the proposals so far fail to acknowledge the importance of the architecture in which its fresh approach is constructed. The CofE is acting as any other charitable organisation, real-estate developer or state institution, without realizing the potential of being like those three but with the added extra of a religious institution with a pre-condition as public benefactor.

This unique mixture and privileged stand should be the starting point for the CofE’s renewed proposition throughout all of its territorial demarcation.

Accordingly, the urban and typological questions of this dissertation towards this new role are as follows: urban

Nevertheless, through the selected examples, it has been made evident that this capacity has been disregarded and as a consequence, the CofE’s present participation in urban development is unremarkable. The CofE is one of the main agents in these new developments for its fundraising expertise, monetary and land acquisition, as well as the continuous management of the communal and other spaces of the projects for its interest and administrative knowledge. However, given the fact that it is aiming to attract more members, it is doing so by having no apparent religious

How can the Church of England and its forthcoming architecture have a renewed urban function through new parochial centres? typological

How can the Church of England develop a new architectural typology for changed demographics and social demands?

To that end, the following proposal of a Development Model for the Church of England is advanced.

41

Proposal for the Church of England Development Model

The religious institution in England has the potential to provide alternative modes of development. It is the only institution that has territorial knowledge and ownership, economic viability and sociopolitical influence. Furthermore, it has a public responsibility that goes hand in hand with its own ethical concerns and theological principles. Its worship spaces have been more successful than any other social setting in mixing people from different backgrounds. Nevertheless, the CofE should expand from its religious buildings and prove this inclusiveness on a broader spectrum. This can begin with the re-examination of its community and consider expanding its contributions to communities outside of traditional Christian moral beliefs. This is a required modification, given its growing necessity to appeal to contemporary demographics as a relevant institution. In order to sustain its validity within the contemporary socio-political context, the CofE should propose progressive alternatives to what is being presently offered by the state and the private sector. The Church of England must find new ways of creating meaningful architecture, spaces in accordance with changing social demands, re-defining the concept of hospitality in a contemporary setting. Furthermore, it should make use of its territorial demarcation in order to have a national impact. The proposal of this dissertation is of a multi-scalar nature through collective infrastructure, the new Parish Centres, which will develop new and renewed architectural typologies as urban engines. Comprehensively, the proposed transformation of the CofE presented here, besides being institutional, is a spatial reformation.

43

Strategic Brief

The main purpose of the forthcoming development by the CofE must be to constitute a new model that will primordially benefit the public.

It aims to use the institution from an economic, socio-political and historic perspective in order to contest contemporary conditions such as the persisting housing crisis, social inequality and isolation. It will build for the constitution of a better society by cultivating a cooperative living environment through its provision within the urban fabric. The CofE is envisioned to serve as the balancing platform of profit-driven investment and its social consequences, complementing the public sector. Seeking to ease social exclusion, it should provide decent accommodation, avoid speculation, and promote coexistence and social relations. It should also break away from the standard housing provision for the traditional nuclear family to form a more adequate and modern alternative that considers diverse households through adaptive housing typologies. Furthermore, it should promote equal relationships by focusing on a multi-generational sector and by making no gender differentiation, nor differentiation of race, religion or sexual orientation. It should be inclusive in the sense also of suiting varying legal and economic status. These intentions should be apparent in the physical embodiment of the design. development model

45

Site The proposal expects that the land for the development model should be owned by the Dioceses of the Church Commissioners. Also, that the first proposition for a project must come from the scale of the parish, a group formed by the parishioners supported by a clergy representative.

Each parish can then identify potential sites, in accordance with their local needs.

Funds The acquisition of funds for the development model is twofold. First off, the Renewal & Reform financial scheme previously presented should provide the first monetary basis. Secondly, the CofE is able to claim funds in accordance with the space provided for its charitable associations from the private and public sector, in addition to its fundraising expertise that can be directly put in place.

Management The new development by the CofE will serve as the new social centre within the parochial boundary, having a clergy representative and potential volunteers that (mixed community of inhabitants and visitors).

The parish would provide the locality, the parishioners the community, and the new Church’s intervention the service building(s). The social economy should be taken into consideration for the organization of the new centres. The spaces must be self-managed by the parishioners (inhabitants or part of the community) with the assistance of clergy representatives.

Programme Following the identification of potential sites, a formal analysis of the parish’s necessities must be made marking the urgency and priority level – outlining its relation to a site/user description - which will serve as the basis for the programme. In accordance with the previous observations, each project should cater for the specific parish scale; however, the following considerations should be taken into account: Foremost, the project should focus on three main aspects: housing, wellbeing and education. Specially catering for the upbringing of the new generations, given the growing importance to protect the vulnerable status and responsibility for child-care in the changing social sphere.

In addition, the programme should offer hospitality for the parish – food, shelter and safety - and provide space for the Church’s charitable activities focused on unemployment, the disadvantaged population, financial support and social aid, adult education, the aging population, community development, fragmentation, exclusion, isolation, loneliness, food poverty, as well as refugees and asylum seekers. Homelessness being one of the most urgent matters of the contemporary conditions, every project must be focused on at least one particular kind of support for the homeless– accommodation, health & well-being or education. In terms of hospitality, the development could provide long or short-term accommodation in collaboration with existing associations, as well as provisional shelter in specific seasons. Regarding the second aspect, the programme could incorporate spaces for health assessment (mental and physical), spaces for counselling, workshops and emotional support.

Lastly, it should propose alternative means of education or training for everyday life and promote a culture of cooperation in order to diminish social exclusion. All of which must not leave aside provision of spaces for immediate relief, such as hygiene (laundry, toilet, showers), hunger (food bank, communal kitchen, free meals), clothing (donations and exchange) and integration (counselling and social activities). development model

47

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

part two

The Role of the Church

image

Quantrill, Malcolm, and Esther Quantrill. Monuments of Another Age: the City of London Churches. Quartet Books, 1975. p.01

The previous section presented the political and economic power acquired by the Church of England on account of its territory and presence in the public realm, however, its relationship to Christianity cannot be left aside. The present section will therefore explore the Church, mainly from the perspective of its role as a religious institution, questioning what that role might be with the perishing condition of Anglicanism as well as acknowledging that the changing place of religion in England comes together with spatial consequences. This section will outline how religion has had a major influence on the shaping of a national culture, followed by a deeper understanding of secularization theories and paradigms through a comparison with most recent studies.

Furthermore, an account of the Church’s stand in relation to other faiths will be discussed, exploring the possibilities as to their future role in the light of the emerging conditions of religious practice – including a critical analysis of their current social plans. To conclude, this section will investigate the present acknowledged role of the CofE, as a religious institution of a moral church, and compare its role as a social institution.

This analysis will then be exemplified through an analysis of a designated site and a design proposal.

51

The Role of Religion

T notes

15. Davie, Grace. Religion in Modern Britain: A Persistent Paradox. 2nd ed., Wiley Blackwell, 2015. 1st. Edition 1994. p.04 16. One of the most recognized scholars in matters of religion.

17. Davie, Grace. Predicting Religion: Christian, Secular and Alternative Futures.

Ashgate, 2008. Bruce, Steven. The Demise of Christianity in Britain. p.53 18. Worthen, Jeremy. The Roots of Renewal and Reform. The Church of England, January 2018 19. Davie, Grace. Religion in Modern Britain: A Persistent Paradox. 2nd ed., Wiley Blackwell, 2015. 1st. Edition 1994. p.94-95

he constitution of the Anglican Church established a strong connection between the nation’s cultural heritage and religious faith. A condition evidenced by how ‘Christian tradition has had an irreversible effect in determining the most basic categories of human existence (time and space) in this part of the world.’15 In terms of space, it is the architecture and placement of the parish churches that have (historically and until this day) shaped the urban fabric; in addition to the territorial denominations set out by the parochial model. On that account, Grace Davie16, established the role of the historic churches as the first factor to consider in order to understand religion in Britain and how they have shaped British culture. Furthermore, from a historic perspective, it has been widely acknowledged that pre-industrial Britain was a religious society. In the words of Bruce Steven, ‘the culture was thoroughly pervaded by a Christian world view. The life cycle of the individual and the community was glossed by religious ritual’.17 These characteristics are what constitute a Christendom society, where a particular institutional church has widespread political and cultural influence, the idea that society is uniform and that people are Christian unless they opt out, a state where church-going is the norm. All of this is plausibly the most distinctive factor of the CofE: the relation between church and nation with all of the political and cultural ambiguities involved.18 Therefore, the institution’s importance comes from the link it has to society, as the cultural definition and grand part of the nation’s identity.

The European Enlightenment promoted the notion that modernization came together with secularization. This in turn created the paradigm that viewed religious decline as normal and progressive. Throughout the 18th century, it was argued that traditional forms of religion were unable to withstand either the dislocation of the Industrial Revolution (moving from a largely rural population to an urban one) or the philosophical challenges of the Enlightenment that preceded. Secularization was then 52

defined as ‘the decline in the social (public) significance of religion’19.20 All of which adds to the fact that earlier studies on secularization, which considered urbanization and industrialization as causes, measured religiosity via this observation of church membership and attendance. This perspective tended to equate religion with belief, practice, or experience - without recognizing other possibilities of analysis. More recently, however, scholars have been examining religious behaviour, which rather than measuring a decline in numbers, allows a broader understanding of the topic, which cannot be statistically measured. An example of this is the work of Callum Brown, The Death of Christian Britain (2000), where Christianity is observed in the way it shaped individuals in forming their own identities.

The paradigm assumed that these conceptions would spread to the rest of the world, but as we now know, they did not, which left this secularized perception more of an exceptional case in global terms. Even if Britain is dominated by the Christian faith, other religions are increasingly present, which has caused for religion to be a recurring topic in public debate.

This situation threatens the status quo of religiosity being a private matter.21 The fact that religion is re-appearing in public life, contrary of what had been anticipated some decades ago, raises the question of how it will be spatially portrayed in the near future.22 Setting that to one side, the most important consideration of the present is that the Church continues to be ‘established’, an arrangement that signifies a special relation between the Church and the political order.

The rights and privileges from this position, however, carry with them corresponding obligations and responsibilities. The irreligious front varies from indifference to extreme opposition23, the more acknowledged confrontation in public debate usually comes from either the British Humanist Association founded in 1896 or the National Secular Society (1866) both of which fight for the disestablishment of the Church.24 This

the role of the church

53

is an understandable position in light of the institution’s failure to attend to societal concerns, and present itself as a modern-day representative.

The current lack of popularity of the Church of England is hardly related to religious decline or opposition to its establishment. In the words of Steven Bruce: ‘…(we) are more tolerant of church leaders pronouncing on abstract issues that come within the remit of governments (such as world poverty and education) than speaking out on personal matters of behaviour (such as sexuality). We seem quite happy to allow religious leaders to act as spokesmen for general values, provided they do not tell us how to behave.’25 Therefore, the failure of the Church of England in this regard, is its institutional focus.

notes

25. Davie, Grace. Predicting Religion: Christian, Secular and Alternative Futures.

Ashgate, 2008. Bruce, Steven. The Demise of Christianity in Britain. p.56 26. Picton, Hervé́. A short history of the Church of England: from the Reformation to the present day. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015. p.135 27. Such as civil registration, baptism, marriages and funerals.

Furthermore, today the Church is regarded by other faiths as a better alternative than a secularized state: other faiths and denominations do not consider establishment as a major problem anymore. On the contrary, they tend to view established religion as a strong public statement that religion still matters in the country,’26 thus proving their harmonious relation with the CofE. Also, supporters of the establishment have pointed out that, the various official functions fulfilled by the Church27, constitute essential rites of passage in the life of the individuals that contribute to the collective identity of the nation.28 In this regard, Grace Davis’ proposal of a ‘weak’ Church is pertinent. Her argument is that a strong established Church may have ‘excluding and exclusive’ consequences. A weak Church however, has the capacity to be more accommodating. This is a position that could be embraced by the state Church, whose role is presumably to be the spokesperson of all faith communities, and that has a duty of care to all regardless of religious affiliation or lack of it. Therefore, the proposal presented in this dissertation of Parish Centres, complementary to the existing parish churches should have an architecture language which appeals to contemporary diverse demographics. Taking into consideration the rapidly changing patterns of the religious factor, and the impossibility of the role of religion

54

attaining a certain prediction for the third millennium, the CofE should approach its religious aspect from a theological (or charitable) perspective in relation to ethical concerns and human values in which principles of cooperation and community have a greater importance than religious affiliation. In that regard, the institution can take a moral leadership which caters for fundamental societal necessities, granting it a position in the future.

end notes

20. Bryan Wilson, the popularizer of secularization theory from 1982, observed that as to the categories of social organization: on the processes of production and consumption (economy), the coordination of activities (government), the agencies of control (the law) and the methods of transmission of knowledge (education), they could all exist without reference to anything transcendent.

21. The conviction of the new arrivals, in their apparent religiosity call for (ideological, constitutional and institutional) alternatives to religion. The view of Grace Davie is that religion was not absent for most of the twentieth century, but that it became personal; she argues so through her theory of ‘believing without belonging’. She claims that people were reluctant to be publicly part of an organization, however they kept their Christian traditions and beliefs.

22. One of the first aspects to be taken into account to address this issue comes from the historic co-existence of the Church of England with other religious institutions. In what has been called the ‘great age of religious activity in England’ from the mid 16th century until the late 18th, religion was not exclusively the preserve of the Anglican faith: this period also saw the emergence of Quakerism, Congregationalism, Presbyterianism and Methodism, leading as a result to a relatively developed degree of religious diversity from an early age, unlike the situation in most of Europe.

23. The advocates against opposition are the ‘new atheists’ whose core argument is that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticised and exposed by rational argument.

However, their radical views have been compared with those of the ‘Creationists’.

24. The work of Tariq Modood alerts against the disestablishment, by claiming that “it may have unexpected consequences: not only would it marginalize the Church of England, it would at the same time sideline all those who choose to take faith seriously whatever their religious allegiance”.

As observed by Grace Davie (2015). p.97

image next page

Mackmurdo, Arthur Heygate. Wren’s City Churches. Orpington, Kent: G. Allen, 1883

28. These convictions are supported by the present monarch, Queen Elisabeth II, who has claimed that ‘religious diversity is something which enriches society; it should therefore be seen as an asset, not a threat.’ (Davie, Grace. Religion in Modern Britain: A Persistent Paradox. 2nd ed., Wiley Blackwell, 2015. 1st. Edition 1994. p.98) Similarly, Prince Charles, the heir to the throne ‘has indicated that he would as a monarch prefer the designation ‘Defender of Faith’ to the historic ‘Defender of the Faith.’ (Ibid., p.98)

the role of the church

55

A New Era of Evangelization

The causes of decline (of Church attendance) are both complex and varied.

Among them figures prominently the consumer society and its attendant materialism which, arguably, precisely reached its peak in the 1960s. The growing individualism which characterized western societies could also account for the rejection of all forms of institutionalized and collective belief.29 - Hervé Picton

notes

29. Picton, Hervé́. A short history of the Church of England: from the Reformation to the present day. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015. p.138 30. Report of Proceeding 2013, General Synod, July Group Sessions, Volume 44 No.1 31. Rudgard, Olivia. “Britain has more non-believers than ever before as Church of England Christians make up lowest-ever share.” The Telegraph. September 2017.

Accessed February 2018

For the time being, the Church of England is intending to begin a new era of Christendom. Its social strategy is being taken into practice through its Renewal & Reform programme, which was launched last year, 2017, in commemoration of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation of the practices of Christianity. However, reformation half a millennium later surprisingly breaks tradition to reform the Church as an institution, and adversely plans to reform its people. During the General Synod of 2013, the Church announced its focus to re-evangelise the nation, aiming to ‘transform people’s hearts and minds’30. In order to do so, the Church has laid out a series of steps on the Archbishops’ Council Plans of 2017.

The first being Evangelism, is followed by Discipleship, in order to make of those new worshippers promoters of the faith. This is complemented by its initiative to ordain more ministers (50% more by 2020) and establish a solid cycle. Lastly, its ninth step ‘welcoming all people’ states: ‘to be a Church for all the people of England by developing a strategy for evangelism and discipleship for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic, economically excluded and disabled people’. Therefore, the Church seems to be inclined to include everyone as long as they go through their process of evangelization.

Ever since the spread of secularization, it has been said that Britain has entered a post-Christendom era. In consequence, the Anglican Church 58

52% Never

30% Infrequently

10% Sick

Church Attendance 2014 Parishioners Today British Social Attitudes Survey

70% Retired Christian Demographics Christianity in the UK Faith Survey

32. Christianity in the UK Faith Survey https://faithsurvey.co.uk/ uk-christianity.html 33. Parishioners Today British Social Attitudes Survey http://www.bsa. natcen.ac.uk/ 34. Paxman, Jeremy. “The Church of England’s flight to survive” Financial Times. September 2017.

Accessed September 2017

has had a major decline of its members; a situation that brought major financial consequences given that its largest support comes from the donations of its people. Recent research has found that ‘the share of the population who say they are Church of England Christians has fallen to just 15%– the lowest ever recorded.’31 Of those who remain Christian, more than half never attend religious services apart from specific rituals or celebrations.32 Besides, the Christian profile of the 21st century in the United Kingdom is largely composed of retired worshippers, with 70% of those giving to the Church coming from the over-50s and 40% coming from the over-70s; along with the ageing clergy of whom 40% will retire over the next decade and half of whom cannot be replaced.33 Consequently, the prediction is that by 2030 there will be 350,000 worshippers and by 2050 only 87,80034. Had life expectancy not increased so much in the last 30 years, the decline of the churches would have been even more dramatic.

In addition to this measurable decline, changing religiosity and alterations to the relationship between the institution and the laity has also been reflected in the Church’s finances. During the late nineteenth century, the Church concentrated on fundraising events rather than its continuing individual donations. ‘The effect of this was that the new generations of Anglican laity were growing up uneducated in the doctrine of Christian the role of the church

59

60

No Religion

40

0%

Anglican

Other Religions

20

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Religion in England

stewardship and were, therefore, more reluctant to give up their money for charitable causes.’ This led the Church to ‘the gradual realization at the end of the nineteenth century that it was failing to educate its laity in the ethos of giving.’35 During the Victorian age, the giving of alms was in a way perceived as an obligation by those in the middle and upperclasses for those in the working-class. However, as Sarah Flew has stated, the decline of this commitment can be a measure of changing public attitudes towards religion’ in addition to the Church’s failure to promote stewardship.36

notes

35. Flew, Sarah. Philanthropy and the Funding of the Church of England: 1856-1914. Pickering et Chatto, 2015. p.105 37. Croft, Steven. Reform and Renewal: the Noddy and Big Ears Guide. Church of England Communications, The Church of England, November 2015

Accordingly, it can be concluded that there are two main reasons why the Church is so dedicated to fomenting discipleship: In the first place, disciples consider giving as one of their core values and therefore are keen to donate to the Church through either monetary contributions or voluntary work; secondly, they have the potential to spread the word and promote Christian doctrine. So, the Church of England instead of repositioning itself in the contemporary context is trying to reverse change by holding on to long lost possibilities. This opposition of the institution to the transformation of society, has even been challenged from within.

An example of this is implied in the following question brought forward

by Revd. Jeremy Worthen: ‘What might it mean to still be a Christendom church – a church with a particular, indeed in various ways privileged, a new era of evangelization

60

relationship to the social and political order – in a post-Christendom society, where Christian belief has ceased to be the norm?’ This seems more assertive. The debate about the present condition comes down to whether it is best to focus on obtaining new followers to make the church grow or whether the church should transform itself in order to attract new followers; so far, the CofE has opted for the first option. Nevertheless, the aim to change society disregards the CofE’s history of institutional reform. The institution’s expectation is that every church will become better at making, sustaining and equipping disciples: that Christians will understand their faith better and share it more confidently.37 This current evangelization purpose must be seen in a different light from the subsequent section that detail other roles of the Church: the Social and Moral. end note

36. Stewardship ‘teaches that God is the absolute owner of all property in the world, and that man simply acts as God’s manager or steward. Within the church’s doctrine, a man ‘must use the resources wisely for the benefits of all, and not solely for a man’s own pleasure.’ (Ibid., p.105-106).

Research has also shown that the teaching needs to be ‘periodically repeated otherwise it will be forgotten’ a habit that has to be acquired by repetition and rule. The awareness of these issues, as were clearly summarized in the Central Board of Finance’s booklet of the 1990s - Receiving and Giving: The Basis, Issues and Implication of Christian Stewardship, could also be incorporated into a consideration of their current ambitions.

the role of the church

61

The Church as a Social Institution

The Church is the only institution that exists for the benefit of those who are not its members.

- William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury in the 1940s

Preceding the current system of welfare-provision, it was the Church and other charities who bore this responsibility. Their social teachings, conceptually were the backbone of the welfare regimes that followed.

The institutionalization of the affair was slowly developed in the course of the 19th century, beginning with the aforementioned Broad Church Christianity. It had its roots in the 1840s and 1850s when a number of so-called ‘Christian Socialists’ highlighted the relation between their Christian faith and social justice. That is to say, not only should the benevolence of the Church impact all people, but also the Church must engage in the social sphere. Moreover, some decades later Charles Gore continued this endeavour via his work Lux Mundi, published in 1889.

Gore and his contributors rationalised their belief in the central role of the Church, where Christian principles, including charity, must have a social and political presence.38 The question since the first Poor Relief from government and ecclesiastical action was always ‘whose poverty deserves relief and who should bear the cost?’39 Industrialisation, population growth and ideological shifts produced various solutions to the matter. Whereas the intention in the early 17th century was on helping the poor (Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601), with the New Poor Law of 1834 the response was to deal with them through punishment, which architecturally meant placing them in the houses of correction. The downfall of the subject came with the workhouse, where the intention was to help the poor help themselves, but reality was that this meant forced labour. As the industrialization process occurred and population rapidly moved from countryside to cities, traditional forms of social care dependent on the household 62

and the church were insufficient. Considering that such power had been transferred to the state, it was their role to fulfil this task. An example of this is the development of medical care as a secular profession, financed by the state through taxation. This was a process which led to the creation of the National Health System established in 1948.

Under Esping-Andersen’s analysis of the different welfare regimes in Europe (the liberal, the conservative and the social democratic), Britain falls under The Liberal Model. This is typical of Anglo-Saxon countries, where responsibility is taken by the state for basic social issues such as health, education and social care, in addition to independent agencies.

In contrast is the Conservative model, where family is more important that the state in the delivery of welfare, and which persists in places like Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Romania. Another characteristic of this Liberal system is its promotion of a market solution, such as pensions – a status that was even more apparent during the Thatcher era. However, it was not conceived as such: rather it emerged from a particular point in time where some conceptions, such as vocational commitment to full employment, were expected to be the norm, a historical context with preconditions which no longer exist.

The Liberal model largely depended on traditional forms of labour, and the model of the nuclear family. It did not account for change and instead today, as a solution care is being systematically outsourced – away from the state to the for-profit and non-profit sectors, while in addition, individuals are being increasingly expected to take care of themselves. In other words, ‘The British expression of the liberal welfare regime exists as

the role of the church

63

a balance between family, market, voluntary section and public provision.

The state may still retain overall control over welfare, but the publicsector acts increasingly as commissioner rather than provider of services.

Over recent decades, both voluntary and private sectors have taken on larger roles in partnership with the state, providing services totally or partially funded by the state.’40 This contemporary framework offers the Church a new type of role.

In broad terms, welfare nowadays is conceived as economic and social security, adequate housing, medical care at the point of need and education for all. Nevertheless, more subjective ideas have emerged in recent times under what’s been framed ‘quality of life’. This is a reminder of the blurred line between welfare and well-being. This perspective, arguably, comes from the population that takes for granted institutional services, perhaps the majority of the population but not all. Those who fall outside these lines, outcasts of the capital society for either permanent or temporary conditions, are what constitute the new poor.41 These new forms of poverty, of those who cannot participate in the global market, create a population dependant on alternative kinds of support; circumstances that come at a high price. The possibility for the Church of England to participate in this regard, comes from their status of a charitable organization. This status has allowed them exceptional benefits, such as being exempt from tax payments, and being able to receive donations. Thereafter, the church has enabled a variety of possibilities in which anyone can make a donation. Hence, once more, the Church of England’s political position conveys on it a responsible role towards society’s well-being.

In recent modern understandings of health care, where religion has been extracted, care is seen as holistic. This implies that religious, or rather spiritual needs should be taken into account. For this reason, NHS hospitals not only employ chaplains but produce policy statements indicating how the church as a social institution

64

notes

40. Bäckström, Anders, et al. Welfare and Religion in 21st century Europe: Volume 1 Configuring the Connections.

Ashgate, 2010. p.116 42. Davie, Grace. Religion in Modern Britain: A Persistent Paradox. 2nd ed., Wiley Blackwell, 2015. 1st. Edition 1994. p.114-115 43. Bäckström, Anders, et al. Welfare and Religion in 21st century Europe: Volume 1 Configuring the Connections.

Ashgate, 2010. p.10 44. Thompson, Barney. "Church of England blessed by property boom."

May 2017, Financial Times. May 2017 45. Andrew, Phil. Tackling Loneliness and Isolation. Church of England Communications, The Church of England, March 2016

they will meet the ‘physical, mental, social, spiritual and religious needs of their varied patients.’42 Furthermore, the Church remains active and effective at local level, offering informal care in various ways and through creative approaches. Their presence is significant when this takes place at the scale of the parish system, which provides a relatively unparalleled network of actions across the nation. Moreover, the welfare regime is in such a state of crisis (a reality in most advanced western societies) that it has been named ‘welfare-state in transition’. On the one hand, there’s the unavoidable paradox: ‘populations which are well looked-after expect not only to be fit and well, but to live longer, and will therefore require more care.’43 In addition, there exist demographic and social factors such as the aging population, with changes in family and household composition diminishing the system’s reliance on large amounts of informal care, which came from the family. There are also increasing differences in the health and wealth of the population. All necessitate additional support, in which the Church already plays a supportive role. However, their appearance and participation can be developed once it becomes spatialized through the network of new Parish Centres.

In the present day, the Church is said to be the second-largest charity in the UK, and the eighth largest in the world,44 but what is this charitable aspect of the Church genuinely doing? It appears as if their present contribution to today’s concerns, which they have identified as loneliness and isolation ‘as the most widespread social problems affecting English communities, regardless of income or social class’45 - is to be a social network. They work on bringing people together, and are able to provide administrative guidance and training, and help raising funds. At the scale of the nation, they assist parishes to develop vision and strategies for community engagement, as well as hiring staff and training volunteers.

The context of each parish gives the specificities for their involvement, however, recurring actions are to provide shelter, food, clothing, English lessons and legal advice for ‘anyone that turns up’. Their focus is towards

the role of the church

65

The Church of England is seen as having both a duty and an opportunity over and above the norm: a duty to speak out because of the privileged position it has, and an opportunity to make use of its unique access to the corridors of power.

(At all scales) they are knowledgeable about the local area and the workings of the system […] (However), it should be fully engaged with society at the local community if what it says is to be taken seriously.46 - Anders Bäckström

issues including homelessness, food poverty, financial exclusion and debt, as well as refugees and asylum seekers. Perhaps the largest examples of these are the Church Urban Fund and the Church Housing Trust, both of which claim to be indebted to society by means of their Christian values of care-giving and philanthropy. The Church then serves as an agent of change around contemporary issues using their territorial and social network. However, the current social role of the Church is unperceivable - there is no architectural or substantial evidence. Therefore, their public face today is solely of a moral church. notes

46. Bäckström, Anders, et al.

Welfare and Religion in 21st century Europe: Volume 1 Configuring the Connections. Ashgate, 2010. p.126 47. Genders, Nigel. Church Schools, Consultation and the Education Bill. Church of England Communications, The Church of England, November 2015 48. The Report of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Commission on Urban Priority Areas by the Central Board of finance of the Church of England. Faith in the City: A Call for Action by Church and Nation. Church House Publishers, 1985. p.229 49. Ibid., p.290

The Church of England has constructively withdrawn from the provision of public services as such, throughout the 20th century. Rather, the institution took on the role of a combative church, by having a social voice and openly criticizing and challenging government policies given its capacity to engage in public debate at all levels. The work was instigated

by William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury between 1942-1944, who paved the way. During those years he pushed the state to commit to eradicating inequalities such as unemployment, fearing a return of the socio-economic conditions before the war. The transition of social responsibility from Church to state - as exemplified through taxation, laws and ideological movements – constrained the Church’s involvement from being a prominent institution involved in all public matters to having a side-lined opinion, which, depending on the context, is carefully

the church as a social institution

66

expressed or forcefully proclaimed. There is conceivable evidence for the continuing role of the Church of England as the spokesperson for moral issues and social injustices, as the representative of one nation. It continues to play a leading role, speaking out on areas such as support for the ‘vulnerable, community cohesion and education’47 – making it far from outdated for the modern world.

As an antecedent for its current role as the conscience of the nation, the clearest example is the publication of Faith in the City in 1985, a report on living conditions in designated Urban Priority Areas, in which the Church’s representatives imparted general judgement, such as the following: ‘Our society has accepted that every citizen has a right to food, clothing, education and health care, adequate to his or her needs and irrespective of ability to pay. Yet appropriate housing which is as fundamental to human development as health care and having enough to eat, has never been accepted as a right for all.’48 Although what was clearly evident from the report is that such claims were ever hardly listened to; their quest to be ‘agitator for reform’ was far from sufficient. For instance, on the subject of housing, the campaign of 1933, The Challenge of the Slums, and the report of 1982, commissioned by the General Synod, Housing and Homelessness for the dioceses have been mostly disregarded, so they say.

In fact, the report of Faith in the City resulted in a bold critique of the neo-liberal economic policies of Margaret Thatcher and its unforeseen social and economic effects. One of which is, in their words, ‘a disintegrated society’, where ‘a significant number of people in the inner city and the outer estates are friendless and desperately lonely’, including ‘those abandoned or withdrawn from their families, unemployment people with no workplace contacts, perhaps emotionally damaged by the traumas and humiliations of redundancy’49 The individualistic ideology of the Thatcher government was thus openly criticized: ‘We believe that at present too much emphasis is being given to individualism and not

the role of the church

67

image

ArcGIS map showing Church of England parishes and summary deprivation and census data (the darkest being the most deprived).

It was produced by the Church of England Research & Statistics Unit, and is continuously updated.

The data is supplied by the Church Commissioners, A Church Near You, Church of England Online Faculty System, Church Heritage, National Statistics, Local Government and the Department of Education.

It was created in 2016, and since then has been a useful tool for the governance of the parochial system.

This information was determinant in selecting the site for the design proposal.

notes

50. Picton, Hervé́. A short history of the Church of England: from the Reformation to the present day. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015. p.129 51. Faith in the City (1985)., p.261

enough to collective obligation’. Picton argues that ‘the most notable change in the 20th century was unquestionably the political engagement of a Church that appears to have become – rightly or wrongly – the ‘nation’s conscience’. It is a role which, arguably, could help justify its increasingly fragile status as an established Church.’50 Nevertheless, a social concern coming from a religious institution under the light of the contemporary context is not enough. A trace of the possibilities has been overlooked on the same report, where the CofE looks at the issues regarding its own presence in the public realm and questions its own immorality as to the impact it may have for society when a redundant church is replaced by luxury flats, stating: ‘Given the potential conflict between financial return and social responsibility in so sensitive a matter as inner city housing, we believe that Church involvement in housing should be developed in the future through non-profit-making housing associations, such as Church Housing, rather than as part of an investment portfolio.’51 The relationship between religion and housing is historically rooted, initially concerned with providing temporary shelters for the homeless. Nevertheless, the institution has moved from being a provider to being an advocate for better living conditions where the most vulnerable are housed.

Throughout this dissertation it has been made evident that the possibilities for the Church of England to have a prominent role in the twenty first

the church as a social institution

68

century is to become once more an exemplary builder of the claims it preaches. In other words, its laborious continuous work for social benefit is nowadays missing its architectural counterpart, which would enable it to have an unmistakable presence in the public realm and the social conscience. The potential of the institution is a combination of its existing social work with its moral voice; a condition evidenced by the substantial efforts put in place by reason of its evangelization goal. These capabilities, complemented by the growing importance of religion, are the foundation for the following design proposal. end notes

38. During the Victorian Era, some of those notions took place where Evangelicalism was largely in place; they ‘carried out some remarkable work in matters of social reform, to which should be added extensive philanthropy, as well as relentless efforts to educate the poor and eradicate various social evils.’(Picton, Hervé́. A short history of the Church of England: from the Reformation to the present day.

Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015. p.102) In parallel, Benjamin Disraeli, in his 1845 publication of Sybil: or the Two Nations, stated that ‘… power has only one duty - to secure the social welfare of PEOPLE.’ However, the term ‘welfare’ was not used until the 20th century when all of these ideals were defined following the Beveridge Report of 1942, where William Beveridge identified five Giant Evils in society: squalor, ignorance, want, idleness, and disease, and proposed a system of social welfare to address them, not far from the issues that were previously addressed by the Church.

39. The poor have been categorised in many different ways throughout history; from the ‘impotent poor’, who were the sick, elderly and disabled, to those who were called beggars or vagabonds, ‘poor by choice’.

41. Since new divisions of labour emerged, inclusion and exclusion were foreseeable consequences.

New forms of employment have benefited economic elites and an expanding middle class; on account of this, part of society has been named ‘fourth world’, given that it exists in almost all European countries.

the role of the church

69

Design Proposal St. Luke’s Parish Centre

St. Luke’s St. Clement Finsbury Parish

St. Luke’s Parish Centre is a design proposal for the Church of England, as a first incision to its new role of a public social institution. This first project is designed to be a provocation, through an ambitious architectural an urban agenda. The location was selected with the main intention of challenging the current development market to the eyes of central London. This project surfaces once again the institution into the public realm, challenging typical urban development by the for-profit sector.

Nevertheless, this is a theoretical starting point for the experimentation of new and renewed architectural typologies. It is primarily based on the strategic brief presented in the first part of this dissertation, in addition to site-specific considerations. Therefore, this proposal is a design example within a specific context; it should not be considered as a final design but rather an illustration of the multiple possibilities. Furthermore, each of the scales of the design is to be considered a strategic model that can be repeated and reinterpreted elsewhere, taking into consideration the existing parish network.

image

Diocese of London Parish Map Location of St. Clement Finsbury Parish

design proposal

73

Living Units Design Process

Bath

unit one 1 Adult / 1 Child

The development of housing typologies went through a specific design process beginning with the living units. As the importance of the upbringing of the new generation is highlighted in the design brief, living arrangements considered child care as its main activity. Exploring different possibilities of sharing and cooperation among a diversity of adults and children. Child age and number of children per adult responsibility were guiding factors for the design of the living units. In order to develop the housing typologies possibilities, the living units were arranged in different variations exploring possibilities of shared space and services.

Bath

unit two 1 Adult / 2 Children

Bath

unit three 1 Adult / 3 Children

Living Units 5m.

design process

design proposal

75

Shared Services

Shared Services

type i (2 unit one) 2 Adults / 2 Children

type iv (1 unit one, 1 unit two) 2 Adults / 3 Children

Shared Services

Shared Services

type ii (3 unit one) 3 Adults / 3 Children

type v (2 unit one, 1 unit two) 3 Adults / 4 Children

Shared Services

Shared Services

type iii (2 unit two) 2 Adults / 4 Children

type vi (1 unit two, 1 unit three) 2 Adults / 5 Children

Housing Typologies 10m.

design proposal

Unit One Unit One

Child Bedroom

Shared Services

Unit One

Storage

Unit One

Adult Bedroom

Shared Space

Child Bedroom

Shared Space

Storage

Child Bedroom

Kitchen Adult Bedroom

Adult Bedroom

Shared Space

type i

type ii

Housing Typologies

Housing Typologies

2.5m

2.5m

design process

Child Bedroom

Child Bedroom

Kitchen

Adult Bedroom

Unit One

Shared Services

design proposal

Adult Bedroom

Living Stages Design Process

Parent & Infant (0-6 years old)

Contributing Adults

As part of the design process the consideration of three living stages according to the children age was proposed. This allowed for the examination of the different necessities within child development and how adults could share these responsibilities.

The Nursery Residents: Parent(s) + Child (0-6 years old) & Supporting Adult

The family conforms one living unit and the supporting adult another one. Each unit has a private space, and in between two can share a small space for socializing, resting and storage. Additionally, services such as laundry, kitchen, dining and living area can be shared in between more units.

The Primary School Residents: School Age Children (6-12 years old) & Supporting Adults (including main carers)

This living stage allows the children more independence from their carers by having shared accommodation among age-groups. These are complementary units, which also allow the adults to have different living arrangements and degrees of privacy.

The Supporting Household Residents: Parent(s) + Adolescents (12-18 year old) & Supporting Adults the nursery

Living Stages

design process

The proposal in this living stage is to integrate the residents in an intergenerational mixed setting, within the households all are considered to share similar responsibilities. The Church of England does not provide education at this age, and therefore its focus is towards integration.

design proposal

Parents & Contributing Adults

Ensuite Bedroom Individual Bathroom

School-Age Children (6-12 years old)

2 Bedroom Shared Bathroom & Social Space

Social Student Bedroom Shared Studying Space & Storage

Play

3 Bedroom Shared Bathroom & Social Space

Shared Space Cooking, Eating & Social

the primary school

Living Stages

design process

design proposal

Parents & Adolescents (12-18 years old)

Contributing Adults Shared Space Cooking, Eating & Social

the supporting household

Living Stages

design proposal

the nursery

the supporting household

the primary school

Children

the primary school

Adults

Housing Typologies

design process

design proposal

the primary school

the primary school

Living Stages

Living Stages

Children

design process

Adults

design proposal

Housing Typologies Design Process

Shared

basic unit 1 Adult / 1 Child

Basic Unit Private Space

Service Unit

three unit flat 2 Adults / 1 Child

Double Unit Private Space

Service Unit

four unit flat 3 Adults / 2 Children

design process

The design process allowed for the housing typologies to be simplifies into two types of units: living and service. The living unit is the private space for defined households, which then share a service unit that includes facilities such as bathroom and kitchen, but also space for socializing.

The service unit is what connects the housing typology to the outside and the living units can be added depending on the number of inhabitants.

This design decisions allowed for new housing typologies to emerge, for example the possibility of having single flat units to include contributing adults within the building, however, granting them more privacy. The Three Unit Flat housing typology illustrates two structural options. One composed by a rigid frame where modifications are possible through furniture arrangements and privacy elements. Opposite, there’s a much more open variation allowing for the modification of partition walls according to living stages. The Four Unit Flat comparison, which keeps the rigid structure, explores the possibility of the services being part of the living units, and keeping that central unit as the shared space for interaction. Lastly, the Two Double Unit Flat takes the privacy degree of the scheme further, allowing for two households to share a larger space.

The considerations gathered along the design process defined the basis of the housing typologies. However, depending on the site itself, these can be adapted to fit specific necessities. In order to illustrate this idea, its adaptation for St. Luke’s Parish Centre is presented.

design proposal

single unit flats

Housing Typologies

design proposal

three units flat

three units flat

Housing Typologies

Housing Typologies

design process

design proposal

four units flat

Variation

four units flat

Housing Typologies

design process

design proposal

two double units flat

Housing Typologies

design proposal

site analysis

St. Luke’s St. Clement Finsbury Parish

Regent’s Canal

Shoreditch Park

Parish Boundary

City Road

Churchbuilding

Old Street

Bunhill Fields

London Symphony Orchestra

Parish Plan 200m.

design proposal

site analysis

St. Luke’s St. Clement Finsbury Parish Information parish population

6,941

Ironmonger Row Baths

Radnor Street Park

St. Luke’s Community Centre

CofE’s Primary School

households

3,032

deprivation rank

1,156 out of 12,599 (where 1 is the most deprived) Based on Church Urban Fund statistics. church-building status Deconsecrated, converted into the house for the London Symphony Orchestra LSO. church-school status Church of England’s primary school, nursery and after-school care for 236 pupils.

Voluntary aided schools. architectural context

Surrounded by housing estates from the 60-70s, with a mixture of leasehold and council rented accommodation. on-going projects Redevelopment of Red Brick Estate, to incorporate three new housing blocks and a new community centre (all phases are looking to conclude in 2019).

Redevelopment of Finsbury Leisure Centre, to include council homes, healthcare and childcare.

Finsbury Leisure Centre

Youth Club

St Luke’s Gardens

Toffee Adventure Playground

church activities

The neighbouring church, St. John Hoxton, has the senior’s gardening project for the 55+, R2C2 Refugee resource centre for churches to support asylum seekers and refugees, and use the digital platform Host Nation for foreigners to connect with locals and learn English. The church also offers pay-as-you-feel lunches on a weekly basis.

Red Brick Estate

London Symphony Orchestra

Site Plan 50m.

design proposal

site analysis

image top

St. Luke’s Gardens LSO events website image right

St. Luke’s satellite image Google Maps

design proposal

site analysis

image top and right

St. Luke’s Church before and after renovation by Levitt Bernstein in 2003. Levitt Bernstein Web. 2018

design proposal

site analysis

image top

Lizard Street image right

Radnor Street Park

design proposal

site integration

St. Luke’s Parish Centre

The Masterplan

This is the design proposal for the new Parish Centre of St. Luke’s. Its goal is to create a new social centre for the inhabitants of St. Clements Finsbury Parish and its visitors. It includes the redevelopment of the Church of England Primary School and Radnor Street Park. The design reinterprets the language of the Red Brick State of courtyard buildings creating a diversity of open spaces strategically linked. Its placement is set back from Old Street, having a more intimate setting. The proposal is to provide a new type of living typology incorporating housing and education within the same complex, among a diversity of community spaces and public services.

Park

Masterplan 50m.

design proposal

St. Luke’s Parish Centre

The Building

The programme is divided into two main areas, the upper floors and the lower ground. The space above is reserved for the inhabitants of the centre, offering different types of accommodation within a cooperative living environment. Underneath the education and service spaces are laid out around a central courtyard within varying degrees of accessibility and privacy. The disposition of the complex is designed to create a series of platforms on different levels to procure interaction. Additionally, the placement of fundamental transitional and central staircases reinforces the quality of this encounters.

Section View

design proposal

St. Luke’s Programme

ACCOMMODATION Families Prioritizing households which include children from 0-12 years old, from single to multi-parents (1-3 adults, 1-2 children / per household).

Contributing Adults It prioritizes those who don’t fit the standard housing provision market, adults with relatively more ‘free’ time (e.g. retired and active aging population; the unemployed; part-time, freelance or homebased professionals, as well as students).

Guests Temporary visitors of the residents, as well as, guests of the quarter (i.e. the homeless).

SERVICES (Run by the Church representatives, inhabitants and volunteers) The Market Hall To promote informal, interpersonal commerce of internal production and goods, as well as space for donation and exchange.

The Infirmary A supplementary health facility, complementary to existing public and private provision, for the care of parishioners.

The Washhouse A provision of hygienic facilities for the guests and transient visitors; to include toilets, showers, sauna and laundry.

PRODUCTION EDUCATION Traditional Primary school, nursery, kindergarten and day-care centre.

Additional Adult education, skills training, supplementary (holistic – physical and emotional).

Exceptional Multi-purpose halls for special occasions or events (i.e. church).

The Kitchen A space which includes an open kitchen for communal cooking and preparation of free meals for the parish, as well as a food bank.

Additionally, it includes space for the training of bakers (communal ovens), cooks, grocers, together with gardeners (cultivation of vegetable garden).

The Craft Guilds Production spaces for everyday life, and lifelong necessities. Fix and Make Workshops, recognising craftsmanship (i.e. carpentry, clothing and shoemakers). Including an open workshop with tool-borrowing service.

The Art Guilds Spaces of production for the arts.

St. Luke’s Programme

Upper Floors

Accommodation for families & contributing adults

Ground Floor Overall the lower ground is the foundation of the building. It is composed of four main spaces around a central courtyard, each one with a main focus, either education, production, accommodation or services. Beginning with kindergarten, nursery and day-care centre. This space has three main double-height rooms one for play and indoor sports, another for lunch-time and a lastly the multipurpose hall, which can be used for special events by the school or other members of the community. Its placement allows for external circulation and access depending on its use. Opposite to those spaces a small two-storey building holds the class-rooms and a playground on the terrace, it is surrounded by a cloister and a long hallway.

Its position allows controlled access to the central courtyard. The production space includes two large fix & make workshops open to the parish, and in front there’s a small pavilion where inhabitants or visitors can have more intimate studios. In addition, the corridor in between these spaces, is proposed as a provisional market hall where informal commerce can take place, and on occasion be open to everyone. On the corner. there’s a small infirmary, to service people in need.

As to accommodation, the guest-house (open as an emergency shelter in times of need) is a linear two-storey building with 32 rooms, which can accommodate a maximum of 64 people. Half of the rooms have a private bathroom; however, the guest-house holds a wash-house on each end with toilets and showers. One of which also holds a laundry place, open to the parish. The pavilion in front the guest-house is made as an integration spaces where different types of activities or open events can take place. By its side, the Kitchen is composed by two central functions, eating and cooking. The cooking area is an open kitchen run by the inhabitants

Laundry Integration Workshops Guest Accommodation Infirmary

Wash-house

Multi-purpose Hall

Kindergarten & Nursery

Kitchen Clergy Accommodation

design proposal

Lower Floors

programme

Wash-house

Workshops

Laundry

Infirmary

and volunteers to cater for the guests and other visitors of the parish. The dining area is placed within the adjoining pavilion in the garden, where weekly pay-as-you feel lunches can take place.

Complementary some space was reserved for a food bank, and a cafĂŠ/shop. The programme of the courtyard and the cloister is then to serve all of these functions. A playing area for the kindergarten, a vegetable garden for the kitchen, an interaction space for the production and integration spaces.

Guilds Multi-purpose Hall

Lastly, the parsonage next to the main entrance refers to the residence of the parish priest as the church representative(s), but it also includes on the ground floor offices for the administration and organisation of the building.

Integration

Guest House

Kindergarten

Dinning Accommodation Hygiene

Main Entrance

Education Production Health Kitchen Community

Parsonage Wash-house

Food Bank

Cooking

Ground Floor 10m. design proposal

CafĂŠ

programme

Terrace

Upper Levels Four two-storey buildings around the central courtyard compose the upper levels of this building. All placed within a platform accessed by two circular staircases (one around an elevator). There are four types of flats (single, three, four and six units) made for families and contributing adults, each one composed by living and service units. Its disposition within the building varies according to orientation and desired privacy, allowing for balconies to the courtyard. The arrangement of the four buildings accommodates spaces in between as thresholds of possible interaction, as well as a combination of exterior and interior circulation that depending on its width function as a corridor or a terrace. In addition, the organisation of the households varies from one storey to the other, in order to diversify the faรงades.

Single Unit Flat Three Unit Flat Four Unit Flat Six Unit Flat

Second Floor 10m. design proposal

plans

Market Hall

Terrace

Cloister Walk

Vegetable Garden

Playground

Kindergarten

Main Entrance

Kitchen Passage

Parsonage

Second Floor

Ground Floor

10m.

10m. design proposal

circulation

Second Floor

Ground Floor

10m.

10m. design proposal

privacy

-

+

Second Floor

Ground Floor

10m.

10m. design proposal

Kitchen Passage

design proposal

Integration Pavilion

design proposal

accommodation

St. Luke’s Living Units

sleeping

The housing typologies adapted to St. Luke’s site, continue the logic of the service and living units. As to its three types of residents (families, contributing adults and guests) an examination of their different activities and its degree of privacy was performed. The conclusion was that the families (with the growing children) together with the contributing adults, have very similar spatial requirements. On the other hand, the guests, needed a separate space: the Guest House.

The typical arrangement of the housing typologies is of two living units with a service unit in between. Each living unit has two rooms and a private space in between, at least one of the rooms of each unit is to be a bedroom and the additional can be a study/work space. Of this arrangement four housing typologies emerged: Single Unit Flat, Three Unit Flat, Four Unit Flat and Six Unit Flat.

The privacy spectrum of each of the spaces within the units, allows for different households to share a variety of intimate spaces depending on their relationship. All of the units can be interchangeably occupied by the two types of residents, families or contributing adults. Within this framework, diverse household compositions are possible.

/ resting

cooking

/ eating

washing

(toilet, shower, laundry)

work/study

Private storage

Semi-private Shared

families

contributing adults

guests

housing

St. Luke’s Living Units

service living

unit

living

unit

shared

unit

Bedroom 1 Main Carer(s)

Bedroom 2 Contributing Adult Kitchen

Household’s Private Space

Shared Space

Semi-private Space

Infant’s Bedroom

Access

Work/Study Space

design proposal

housing

St. Luke’s Living Units

single unit flat contributing adults

1-2 Adults per household

three unit flat families or contributing adults

1-2 Adults & 1-2 Children per family household 2-4 Adults per contributing adults household

four unit flat &/or contributing adults

families

2-6 Adults & 2-3 Children per household

six unit flat &/or contributing adults

families

4-8 Adults & 2-4 Children per household

design proposal

housing

St. Luke’s Living Units

Privacy -

single unit flat contributing adults

+

four unit flat &/or contributing adults

families

1 Double living unit, 1 Single living unit, 1 Service shared unit

three unit flat families or contributing adults

2 Living units, 1 Service unit

six unit flat &/or contributing adults

families

2 Double living units, 1 Double service shared unit

design proposal

St. Luke’s Living Units

One Unit Flat 1m. design proposal

St. Luke’s Living Units

living

service

living

unit

unit

unit

three units flat & contributing adult

family

1-2 Carer(s) & 1-2 Children left living unit 1-2 Adults right living unit

three units flat families or contributing adults

1-2 Adults & 1-2 Children per family household 2-4 Adults per contributing adults household

three units flat family household

2-4 Adults & 1-3 Children

design proposal

St. Luke’s Living Units

Four Units Flat 1m. design proposal

St. Luke’s Living Units

Six Units Flat 1m. design proposal

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

part three

The Role of the Architecture

This section takes into consideration the potential of architecture for the Church of England. It begins with a historic recollection of the institution’s transformative capabilities in accordance with social necessities, incorporating its spatial counterpart – the Church’s pioneering typologies for the provision of services and collective infrastructure.

Furthermore, the methodology includes examples of contemporary transformations of church-buildings compared to those brought by the Protestant Reformation. Together with an analysis of historic case studies, all of which developed into design guidelines.

image

St. Paul’s Cathedral, London 1948

151

Transformative Church-buildings

A

contemporary interest in the parish churches of London relates to their urban condition, which comes from the complexity of elements that compose its remains – and not only its historic landmark quality. In their domestic scale, they hold an interior and an exterior space, which rarely comes from the original design but rather from the transformation of their surroundings. In some cases, they have a square or an enclosed yard that was preserved, and on the occasion of an overbuilt block they are accessed through small corridors or side streets. Their importance falls in the way they relate to the urban fabric and what they provide to the city today. Even a gesture such as the opening of their former site in the condensed city, which allows the surrounding buildings to benefit from its location and scale. Complemented by the fact that they have an invisible connection and form a series of spaces, which represent a historic religious background, but also a remembrance of spirituality and the sacred. It is in their neglect that their discrete possibility as urban engines in their repetitiveness is found; they are already a series of collective spaces that have a character of public residing within the historic, with a possibility to shape a new type of collective infrastructure.

notes image

St. Neots CofE Boys School, 1954 <http://st-neots.ccan.co.uk>

52. Davis, E. Jeffries. The Parish Churches of The City of London. p.913

At a lecture given by E. Jeffries Davis, The Parish Churches of the City of London at The Royal Society of Arts in 1935 a question was raised from the crowd regarding the future of the church buildings with the vanishing congregations. Should they be preserved or destroyed under the assumption that no one uses them, was the central enquiry. The lecturer responded: â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;It is a mistake to think that the City churches are not being used. People use them for quiet and rest, and not only for worship; they were heavens of peace in the heart of the city.â&#x20AC;&#x2122; It was debated at length at the time due to Christianity still being highly linked to moral and ethics even if it was no longer practiced broadly, that the demolition of these buildings was the obvious choice before private investors, the state or even the Church itself would dare to change their use to a non-religious the role of the architecture

153

practice. A solution to this issue was the concept of deconsecration, where the sacred aspect of a church building would be removed, hence allowing it to transform. Therefore, in the case where a building had not been listed it could rapidly become adapted to all sorts of secular programmes and thus began the conversion of former worship houses - a process that explains why these remains are not all empty.

Attempts have been made to repopulate and integrate the buildings in the city as frequently visited hubs that follow a social interest. Some churches maintain historical characteristics of Christian worship, such as congregating around a meal, a tradition that prevails in the integrated drink and snack previous to a service. In addition, they promote the modern conception of spirituality not being linked to any specific religion and so the churches are open to all faiths. Therefore, they allow other religious worshippers to congregate in the same space at designated times, as well as those who come for secularised community-oriented activities. On the other hand, the catalogued churches considered part of the nation’s heritage have become a burden from an economic perspective. Their historic, cultural and architectural relevance has made these iconic buildings untouchable; they remain as representations of the past and have to be forcefully preserved. That same grandeur and magnificence which Hawksmoor and Wren envisioned lingers in the silence of the hardly visited interiors. The importance of their preservation far from a nostalgic viewpoint comes from an architectural – yet their social potential is being overlooked. The outstanding effort by religious institutions to separate their architecture from the profane is not diminished by changing paradigms on religion. These buildings, as well as their surroundings, are architecturally, ideologically and socially ready for adequate transformations. transformative church-buildings

154

image

Church of St. Vedast Foster Lane

In that regard, the following examples in which new programmes habilitated into closed churches have been selected to illustrate the continuous transformation of the parish churches due to changing social demands. These modern-day transformations are part of Capital Vision 2020, a proposal of the Diocese of London. The aim of the programme is to renew one hundred worshipping communities and their church buildings, which they describe as ‘places where different strands come together, both temporal and eternal: places of quiet and prayer in a busy city; places of history and beauty; places of celebration and mourning; places of splendid ceremony and ministering to the poor.’ These are just a few examples, however, many churches in London are continuously opening their doors to offer services of hospitality outside the norm.

the role of the architecture

155

image

St. Mary Le Bow Church, City of London, 1920. London Metropolitan Archives

image

St. Bodolphâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Church, City of London, 1969. London Metropolitan Archives

Examples

1

St. David’s Holloway

2

St. James’ Church

West Hampstead

3

St. John the Evangelist Brownswood Park

the role of the architecture

159

transformative church-buildings

1

St. David’s Holloway

The central challenge of this project was the retention of a beautiful worship space within a new framework of social activity in a locally listed church building.

- Matthew Lloyds Architects

St. David’s Church, Worship Space Matthew Lloyd. Web. April 2018

This building’s refurbishment was commissioned to Matthew Lloyds Architects by the Parochial Church Council (PCC) of St. David’s, and was completed in 2013. The church hall had been re-habilitated by members of the community in 1992, after the building had remained empty for nearly a decade. The most apparent addition is the extended porch at the entrance, leading to a double-heighted hallway separating the outside with the main worship space. In addition, a new basement was excavated beneath the original nave, to provide space for a local youth club – which includes music rooms and a kitchen, managed by the local CofE’s secondary school. The first and second levels were also adapted for communal facilities, one of which offers accommodation for a specialist school for autistic teenagers.

transformative church-buildings

the role of the architecture

image

161

transformative church-buildings

2

St. James’ Church West Hampstead

I have always believed in what is actually a very traditional view of the church: that it should be at the heart of local communities and can be far more than a place of worship. It can be a place where children and families come together to meet and socialise, where important community services can be hosted and where vulnerable members of the community can feel supported.

- Revd. Andrew Foreshaw-Cain, former vicar of St. James

The Sherriff Centre, Westhampstead Community Centre. Web. April 2018

St. James’ Church promotes itself as an inclusive parish of the Church of England, which promotes the rights of all people and welcomes them regardless of ethnicity, gender, sexuality or ability. It is also programmatically linked to the local CofE school – St Mary’s Primary School, and works in partnership with St Mary with All Souls, a neighbouring Church that hosts a Sunday School and Youth programme.

Besides the religious programme the church-building holds the Sheriff Centre built in 2014. It is a social enterprise organisation, that began as a proposition by the vicar to provide space for the local Post Office that needed a new venue. Subsequently the Hullabaloo (a soft play area for 40 children from 2-10 years old), a Café and a gift shop were incorporated as part of a business model to ensure long-term financial sustainability, for which all profits go to providing services for the local community. These transformations took place internally, and are hardly perceivable from the outside.

transformative church-buildings

the role of the architecture

image

163

transformative church-buildings

3

St. John the Evangelist Brownswood Park

St. John’s N4, Altar Space. St. John’s the Evangelist Brownswood Park.

Web. April 2018

St. John the Evangelist Church, designed by Tom Hornsby in 1995, has an unusual architectural character as far as church-building goes.

Its modest exterior and semi-circular plan have made it be colloquially called a ‘flying saucer’. Nevertheless, this atypical religious image needed very few modifications to fit the new programme established in 2014.

It includes the Soup Kitchen stocked by donations of local shops, and staffed only by volunteers, who provide weekly meals for anyone who needs them. As well as, the Kids Café, an after-school stay-and-play for primary school children run by parents and volunteer carers. It welcomes up to 35 children, who are welcome to play in the worship space of the church. Additionally, the Church and its Community Hall are available to hire for community groups, concerts, exhibitions, parties and other events. All of these are complementary to the Church being open all day during the weekends as a space for reflection or prayer.

transformative church-buildings

the role of the architecture

image

165

Protestant Church Transformations

T

image

Portrait of Martin Luther

by Hans Holbein in 1523

notes

53. Harasimowicz, Jan. Protestant Church Architecture of the 16th-18th centuries in Europe. Web. October 2016. p.1

166

he previous examples can be considered as adaptations of existing church-buildings to fit contemporary social demands; however, they are fare from being profound transformations. This statement can be reinforced through a historic recollection of church architecture. In the Roman Catholic Cathedrals and great churches the most common composition would be that of the cruciform ground plans, which would usually be longitudinal, known as the Latin Cross Plan. Different from the square plan of the Orthodox, which in order to give equal importance to the elements that conform the church, the ground plan would form a Greek Cross. The main elements that conform the first type of churches internally are the nave and the aisles, the transept, the choir, the altar and the organ; all placed on a clearly defined axis from the entrance. Other aspects that determine the overall character of the church are its sectional variations, the ornamentation and the tower. Depending on each church and the liturgical demands of the time, modification can be observed.

The most remarkable examples of transformations in church architecture are those generated by the Protestant Reformation in Germany. The Reformation was a movement against the Roman Catholic Church, initiated by Martin Luther. The new ideals for the religion, presented in his Ninety-five theses, required specific architectural changes: one example was the need to accommodate the entire local community inside the church following the idea of the church being the house for the people, rather than the house of God. Also, the idea that religion had to be more connected to its follower and not only clergy brought a relocation of the pulpit and altar, since it now required to be visible by everyone during a service.53 The following timeline is framed by the socio-political framework of the Protestant Reformation and the Second World War. Placed underneath are buildings, which exemplify these changes and above are the ideas and movements that reinforced them. Architecturally the conceptual changes

the role of the architecture

167

image

Martin Luther and his Ninety-five Theses in Wittenberg, Germany

notes

54. Harasimowicz, Jan. Protestant Church Architecture of the 16th-18th centuries in Europe. Web. October 2016. p.4 55. Stock, Wolfgang Jean, Albert Gerhards, and Klaus Kinold.

Europäischer Kirchenbau 1900 - 1950 Aufbruch Zur Moderne European Church Architecture 1900 - 1950. Munich: Prestel, 2006. p.165

began with Leonhard Christoph Sturm a theologist and philosopher, who wrote a treatise on ecclesiastical architecture with variants to form on the floor plan, published in 1712. This transformation was portrayed on George Bähr’s Frauenkirche in Dresden, whose spatial unity transformed the classical composition of the Protestant Church.54 Followed by the Wiesbaden Programme on 1891, which stated, ‘the church should display the character of a house of assembly […] not that of a house of God’ and that the ‘unity of the community should be expressed in the unity of the space, with no division into several aisles, nor a distinction between nave/aisle and choir’55, principles shown in the shape of the Wiesbaden Ring Church. On that same year there was a Community Movement, which focused on the idea that the pastor should be seen as part of the community. Two architects began expressing these ideals on architecture form, Otto Bartning and Martin Elsaesser. The former developed the star project, which wasn’t built but served as background for the Resurrection Church, as well as, the Südkirche in Esslingen in 1925, which separated the functions of preaching and communion with a central altar and a curtain.

A series of examples were selected to illustrate how ideological shifts had spatial implications. Modifications that can be perceived through form, structure, geometry and axes as shown on the diagrams. The nave-altar protestant church transformations

168

analysis examines churches that challenged the classic one directional axis. The earliest configuration of this kind (360-degree altar) comes from Rudolph Schwarz’ book The Church Incarnate, a treatise on The Sacred Function of Christian Architecture, which inspired different variations. However, for practical matters, the prevailing arrangement was the first type. An uncommon configuration is that of St. Paulus, the interchangeable altar. A church/community-centre where the main idea was to have several spaces with moving walls and rearrange them depending on the activity. This church is a reminder of the Community Movement of Pastor Emil Sulze in 1891, which architecturally translated into community activities as part of the programme. The Communal Space comparison shows different solutions to this cause. The cases can be classified as follows: Inside, when the community space is unperceivable from the exterior, neither by sectional difference nor materiality, Beneath, when the community centre was placed under the congregation having two different access points, as can be seen on St. Matthews Church.

Attached, when the community centre was placed adjacent to the main building with evident differences on height and openings as can be observed on the Resurrection Church. The two remaining categories are variants of having separate buildings: Connected when joined by a corridor and Apart, as separated buildings with similar language or a surrounding delimitation. the role of the architecture

169

1517-1555

1618-1648

1939-1945

Protestant Reformation

30 Years War

Second World War 1906 2nd Protestant Congress on Church Architecture in Dresden

Zentralbau vs Cruciform

Wiesbaden Programme

Leonhard Sturm, 1712

Pastor Emil Veesenmeyer Wiesbaden Ring Church, 1891

Community Movement

1926 Liturgical Movement of Protestant Church

1948 Protestant Congress on Church Architecture

Sternkirche Group Building Idea

Otto Bartning, 1922

‘Unser Kirchen’ Book Arch. Otto March, 1896

Unser Lieben Frauen Halle (Salle), 1529

Magdeburg Cathedral Magdeburg, 1470

Frauenkirche George Bähr Dresden, 1726-43

20th century

19th century

18th century

17th century

Pastor Emil Sulze, 1891

Gustav Adolf Church

Church of the Redeemer

Otto Bartning Berlin, 1934

Theodor Fischer Munich, 1901

Südkirche

Martin Elsaesser Esslingen, 1925

Resurrection Church Otto Bartning Essen, 1930

geometry

Gustav Adolf Church Unser Lieben Frauen

Otto Bartning Berlin, 1934

Halle (Salle), 1529

Frauenkirche

Resurrection Church

George Bähr Dresden, 1726-43

Otto Bartning Essen, 1930

Church of the Redeemer

SĂźdkirche

Theodor Fischer Munich, 1901

Martin Elsaesser Esslingen, 1925

Magdeburg Cathedral Magdeburg, 1470

the role of the architecture

10m.

nave-altar direction

Resurrection Church

One Direction

Marius Frans Duintjer Netherlands, 1955-56

Church of Maria Königin

Three Directions

St. Christophorus

Two Directions

Dominikus Böhm Germany, 1953/54

Dieter Georg Baumewerd Germany, 1997-99

St. Joseph’s Church

Four Directions

Auguste Perret France, 1951-57/58

The Church Incarnate

360° Altar Interchangeable

the role of the architecture

Rudolph Schwarz Diagram Holly Intimacy, 1938

St. Paulus Paul Posenenske Germany, 1973

10m.

communal space

Orivesi Church Kaija and Heikki Siren Finland, 1961

Inside

St. Matthew’s Church Egon Eiermann Germany, 1952-56

Beneath

Resurrection Church Marius Frans Duintjer Netherlands, 1955-56

Attached

Viikki Church JKMM Architects Finland, 2004

Connected

Bagsværd Church Jørn Utzon Denmark, 1976

Apart

the role of the architecture

communal space

Elevation

Section

Community Space Ground Floor Plan

Ground Floor Plan

Community Space

Basement Plan

First Floor Plan

St. Matthewâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Church

Resurrection Church

10m.

10m.

communal space

Section

Community Space

Ground Floor Plan

BagsvĂŚrd Church 10m.

Historic Case Studies

image

St. Paul’s Cathedral School and the Tower of Wren’s Church St. Augustine. Crawfords, David. The City of London, its Architectural Heritage.

Woodhead-Faulkner Ltd, 1976. p.62

notes

56. A type of charity which within Christian tradition would be directed to the less fortunate as an act of virtue.

From the previous section, it can be concluded that social demands can bring architectural transformations. Such was the case of the Protestant Reformation having an effect in church-building modifications. However, in the context of England the religious institution has been involved in matters outside of religious buildings. The Church as an institution has been a pioneer in the development of architecture for social needs. The most ancient of which are the medieval almshouses and infirmaries that provided accommodation for the elderly, sick and poor people. These residences usually incorporated a chapel, and were funded by the giving of alms.56 Christianity has a pre-condition for care-giving, that can address issues regarding not only religion, but also education, dwelling and general well-being. The importance of those buildings today is the observation of the changes they have endured due to changing sociopolitical context and the antecedent of the Church’s involvement in housing and education. Accordingly, the following case studies were selected each with a primordial focus – starting with the London Charterhouse centred on the living space of a monastic order, followed

by St. Bartholomew’s hospital provisioned for well-being and health, and finally St. Christ’s hospital, focused on education. The observations taken from this section form the foundation of the design guidelines subsequently presented by reason of which, the three case studies are London-based and share a similar scale, also shared with the site selected for the design proposal – St. Luke’s Parish Centre. the role of the architecture

183

case studies

Location

1

1

The Charterhouse

2

St. Bartholomew’s Hospital

3

Christ Hospital

2

3 image

Smithfields, 1745 Rocque’s Map of London Yeo, Geoffrey. Images of Bart’s. An Illustrated History of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in the City of London.

Historical Publications Ltd., 1992. p.10

184

the role of the architecture

185

case studies

The Charterhouse

The Carthusian Order originated in 1084 with the establishment by St. Bruno of Cologne of a hermitage at La Chartreuse in France […] The Carthusians sought to reconcile the two traditions of Christian monasticism: the eremitic (hermits) and the coenobitic (communities), resulting in a distinct and successful form of monastery.57 - Bruno Barber

notes

57. Barber, Bruno, and Christopher Thomas. The London Charterhouse.

Museum of London Archaeology Service, 2002. MoLAS Monograph 10. p.01 58. Suttons Hospital’s pensioners, the Brotherhood, were selected by their lack of means and amount of ‘good work’ or ‘good character’: these were a class constituted by officers, clergymen, doctors, lawyers, and so on. The Brothers received their rooms, dinner in the main hall, a pension and health attendance. It was mandatory that they were single or widowed, and members of the Church of England.

image

The Charterhouse Hospital, 1755 Davies, Gerald S. The Charterhouse London. Monastery, Mansion, Hospital, A Historical Sketch. London: W. H. Smith & Son, 1911. p.28

59. The Washhouse Court (also called Poplar Tree Court), was built to accommodate the lay brothers; whose dormitories were on the upper floor and their offices (obediences) below. It also held a long workhouse on the west wing, as well as a brewhouse, a kitchen, a bakehouse, and a fish hall.

The London Charterhouse was the first urban Carthusian foundation in England. In 1355, Sir Walter de Manny bought thirteen acres of land with the purpose of burying the dead from the bubonic plague. Later, these burial grounds served for the foundation of a Carthusian Monastery.

The construction began in 1370 with temporary houses for 24 monks, which later became the permanent cells. The monastery became very wealthy through gifts and legacies, until the dissolution in 1535, which ended with the hanging of the monks and dismantling of the place. The Charterhouse was then abandoned and had different owners, none of whom were remarkable, until it was bought by Thomas Sutton in 1611, who transformed the remains into a hospital for 80 old men and a school for 40 boys.58 The historic transformation diagrams illustrate the additions that took place during the next century, such as the Guest Houses and the Washhouse Court.59 Before the court, in its place rested the little cloister’s structures, which may have been the first permanent service buildings of the monastery (kitchen, brewery, storehouse). The transformation also had an effect in the exterior spaces such as the Charterhouse Square - an open space, which was used as a churchyard, when the monastery was enclosed within walls.

The cell consisted of a two-storey building, a private garden and a latrine accessed through a narrow passage, as well as a wider covered walkway the role of the architecture

187

the charterhouse

for the monk to walk in. As was the normal practice in Carthusian monasteries, each monk lived in his own cell, all of which were arranged around a great cloister. The cell building was subdivided to provide separate spaces for work, prayer, eating and sleeping. The ground floor was divided into two main rooms, with a narrow lobby running along the front of the cell building to provide insulation from any noise in the cloister.

Today, the Charterhouse continues to be an almshouse for the Brothers and one woman. It has extended its premises by having modern healthcare facilities, complementary to public and private provision. However, most of the original monastery, apart from the exterior spaces and the church (renovated several times) is no longer apparent.

image top

Washhouse Court Davies, Gerald S. The Charterhouse London. Monastery, Mansion, Hospital, A Historical Sketch. London: W. H. Smith & Son, 1911. p.20

image top

Guest Hall Exterior Ibid., p.10 image bottom

The Duke of Norfolk Arcade Ibid., p.15

the role of the architecture

189

190

191

case studies

The Charterhouse Historic Transformation

Cells

Paved Walkway

Great Cloister Churchyard

Precinct Wall Inner Court Tower

Washhouse Church

Chapter House Outer Court

Forecourt

Outer Cemetery

c. 1400

c. 1530

Gatehouse

Additional Cells

Chapel

Cloister Open Area

Great Cloister Great Conduit

Formal Gardens Laundry

Little Cloister

Great Hall Chapel

Church Chapter House

Guest Houses

c. 1450

50m.

Inner Court Outer Court

Post-Reformation

School Chapel

the role of the architecture

case studies

Typical Cell Garden

Well

Room

Passage Cloister Walk

Corner Cell

Garden

Room

Passage

The Charterhouse 10m.

the cell

case studies

St. Bartholomew’s Hospital

St. Bartholomew’s Priory is said to have begun on the 12th century by Raherus, following a vision of Bartholomew, the apostle - with a Church founded in 1113. The edifice included a monastery with a hospital house, founded for the service of the poor, the sick, and pregnant women, with the care of children, who lost their mothers at birth. The Priory became the richest of the thirty-six religious houses founded in the Middle Ages, until it was dissolved by Henry VIII, leaving no architectural evidence of its aspect or spatial composition. Yet, it is known that the hospital buildings were connected with a great hall, where most of the beds were.

Also, several chapels with adjacent lodgings stood within the enclosure, as well as many private houses, some of which had gardens. After the dissolution of religious houses the hospital was left vacant, until the citizens petitioned the king for the premises for the relief of the poor, sick and needy. On 1544, the Hospital was re-constituted for its original purpose and the site was formally established as the Anglican parish of St. Bartholomew the Less.

It was taken down in 1729 due to its ruinous state and a new plan was laid intended to be of dignity without ostentation. The inscription on the plate of the proposal reads as follows:

image

St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, Bird’s Eye View. Yeo, Geoffrey. Images of Bart’s. An Illustrated History of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in the City of London. Historical Publications Ltd., 1992. p.16

The general plan of the new building intended for St. Bartholomew’s Hospital consisting of 4 detached Piles about a Court or area 200 feet long and 160 feet wide, into which there is to be a Passage for Coaches and through the Principal front on one side of which Passage is the Counting house & the Clerks house on the other side a Room for admitting and discharging patients and off of that another Room for the private Examination of them. Joining to which is the Stair Case leading up to the Hall which is 90 feet long 35 feet wide and 30 feet high lighted from both sides. In the other Buildings are Wards for the Sick; each pile containing 12 Wards & each Ward 14 Patients; in all 504. There is a private Room off of each Ward for the Nurse attending it.60

the role of the architecture

197

st. bartholomew’s hospital

The Hospital is the oldest and richest of all our charitable institutions in London.61 - Normanus

The South, West and East Wings holding the wards, were designed by James Gibbs. The simplicity of his design with large central staircases, abundant windows and well-positioned fireplaces – was able to hold modern additions such as the bathrooms, without injuring the design (as shown on the drawings). The North Wing would contain the Great Hall, the Clerk’s House, and other offices. The four buildings were centred around a square, a uniform plan that has proven to be transformative and adaptive. Additionally, the accumulative and multi-scalar qualities of the design are apparent at the scale of the complex (shown on the historic transformation diagrams), where the limit of the site with its different supplementary buildings (i.e. operating theatres, out-patients’ rooms, apothecaries’, staff residences, school buildings, the museum, laboratories, and library) kept changing. The foundation of Gibb’s design remained until 1935, when the South Wing was demolished to build in its place the King George V Medical Block.

notes

60. Osborne, T. English Architecture or, the Public Buildings of London and Westminster with Plans of Streets and Squares. London, 1755. p.84 61. Normanus. An Illustrated Account of St. Bartholomew’s Priory Church, Smithfield. With a Sketch of Bartholomew Fair, St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, and the Prior’s Country Seat, Canonbury Tower, Islington. Bemrose & Sons, London.

With Engravings by G. J. Evans. p.54

198

However, the compositional qualities remain until this day, such is the case of the square, which has been centre of hospital life – for patients, medical staff, students and visitors alike. Similarly, the outer court, between the church and the north wing is the site formerly known as the cloisters dating from the time of the monastic hospital. It was the place where the priory monks had their refectory, dormitory and other domestic buildings. The cloister was also a space for exercise and held a garden and farm which supplied their produce. This self-efficient and independent aspiration of monastic orders, has been spatially reflected with the quality of being a city within a city. In 1948, the Hospital became part of the National Health Service.

the role of the architecture

199

case studies

St. Bartholomew’s Hospital Historic Transformation Doctor’s House

College Entrance Nurse’s House East Wing

Outer Court

Chapel The Square

Workshops

Entrance

North Wing

The Fountain Library Medical Theatres

Laboratory

Apothecary

c. 1745

c. 1888

East Wing St. Bartholomew the Less Church

Chapel The Square

The Fountain

The Square

c. 1856

50m.

Most Recent

the role of the architecture

case studies

Ward

Ward

Ward

Ward

Original Design by James Gibbs 1729

Scullery

Bath & Toilet

Scullery

Fireplace Staircases

Hall

Modified Plan Early 19th century

St. Bartholomewâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hospital 10m.

the wing

Bath & Toilet

case studies

image image

St. Bartholomew’s Square Moore, Norman. A Brief Relation of the Past and Present State of the Royal and Religious Foundation of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. Royal College of Physicians Library, 1895

St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, Perspective View. Moore, Norman.

A Brief Relation of the Past and Present State of the Royal and Religious Foundation of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital.

Royal College of Physicians Library, 1895

case studies

image image

The Museum, 1899. Yeo, Geoffrey.

Images of Bart’s. An Illustrated History of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in the City of London. Historical Publications Ltd., 1992. p.130

The Library, 1899 Ibid., p.134 opposite

Convalescence in the Square, c.1950 South Wing, c.1900 Ibid., p.103 and 95

case studies

Christ Hospital

The dissolution of religious houses, a measure that arose principally, if not entirely, out of the rapacious conduct of Henry’s government, was in many instances attended by consequences the most beneficial to the general interest of the country. Of such nature is this foundation, for it is scarcely possible to form an establishment of more general utility than one which clothes and educates upwards of eleven hundred children, without any expense to their parent, besides furnishing them, in particular cases, with an outfit upon leaving the school; - and such is the principle of Christ’s Hospital.62 - John Wilson

image top

Christ Hospital, Perspective View Wilson, John Iliff. The History of Christ’s Hospital. London, 1821 image previous page

East Wing, 1899. Yeo, Geoffrey.

Images of Bart’s. An Illustrated History of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in the City of London. Historical Publications Ltd., 1992. p.93

notes

62. Wilson, John Iliff. The History of Christ’s Hospital. London, 1821. p.26-27 63. With the exception of the tower, the church was later destroyed in Second World War bombings and now is the site of a public garden.

The site of Christ’s Hospital formerly belonged to the grey friars – Franciscan friars from Italy who came to England in 1224. John Ewin, a benefactor, provided the land and several Mayors contributed to the building of their Church and Convent. Erwin also built their library in 1249. The monastery flourished for 300 years until its dissolution; it was then used for storage until 1546, when the King Henry VIII granted it to the Corporation of the City of London to establish a hospital for the education of poor children – what were called ‘poor by impotency’, which included orphans, the aged, the blind, the lame and the diseased.

The old monastery was transformed to accommodate 340 boys, in a short period of six months, a fact that reflects the adaptive capacity of the architecture. The foundation appears to have attracted the notice of the public so much that it started to receive large donations from members of society. The parishes were obliged to maintain their own poor. In 1655, more than a thousand children were housed and educated in the premises.

Nevertheless, Christ Hospital slowly developed into a Grammar School rather than a refuge. The school (The Blue Coat School) was run by a clerk, a master and a surgeon - in addition to enough assistants for the comfortable upbringing, both domestic and educational, of the coming Blues. The church was also badly damaged by the Great Fire of 1666 and removed some years later; the new church was built by Wren in 1704 the role of the architecture

213

christ hospital

image top

The Hall and Square Blunden, Edmund. Christ’s Hospital, A Retrospect. London, 1823 image below

St. Christ School Cloister London Metropolitan Archives

– Christ’s Church in Newgate.63 The school was organized around three squares known as, the Ditch, the Garden, and the New Play-Ground.

There were further additions, extensions and destructions in the years 1793 and 1823, which highlights the accumulative and transformative attributes of the architecture. A significant annex was the Hall building, which held three fundamental programmes for the school on each of its floors: the ground floor apart from its service function held an arcade connected to the square for shelter and exercise, as well as accommodation for staff; the first floor was the boys dining hall, which included a selfmanaged kitchen; the second floor consisted of small class-rooms and dorm rooms for the students. In 1902, the school transferred to a new site in Horsham where it remains to this day.

image

Christchurch Greyfriars in ruins.

Crawfords, David. The City of London, its Architectural Heritage. WoodheadFaulkner Ltd, 1976. p.83

the role of the architecture

215

case studies

St. Christ Hospital Historic Transformation School

Infirmary Burying Ground

Ditch

The Garden

Church

London Wall

1705

Library Garden Garden

Great Cloister

Friary Little Cloister

Dormitories Church

Garden

Writing School

Infirmary Dormitories Ditch

The Hall

Monastic Plan

The Garden

New Playground

Churchyard

50m.

c. 1836

the role of the architecture

Grammar School

Church

case studies

Choir

Buttery & Organ

Dinning Hall

First Floor

Wardrobe

Kitchen

Passage

Open Arcade for Shelter & Exercise

Ground Floor

St. Christâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hospital 10m.

the hall

Cooks Bedrooms

Meeting Rooms

Principal Staircase

The Charterhouse

c. 1400

c. 1450

c. 1530

Post-Reformation

c. 1745

c. 1856

c. 1888

1705

c. 1836

Most Recent

St. Bartholomewâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hospital

St. Christ Hospital

Monastic Plan

Most Recent

case studies

Comparative Analysis The Charterhouse

The following comparative analysis of the selected case studies has the purpose of retrieving spatial qualities to be replicated and adapted within the contemporary context. The first comparison was between the historic transformation of the three cases, which shows apart from time phasing, compositional changes. Therefore, it can be concluded that institutional transformations as well as changes in the socio-political context have a direct spatial translation. The observations portrayed through the diagrams are the foundation of the design guidelines (subsequently presented), to be taken into consideration for the new development of the Church of Englandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s collective infrastructure - the parish centres.

St. Bartholomewâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hospital

St. Christ Hospital

Accommodation Education Health Religious Mixed Garden 50m.

programme

the role of the architecture

223

comparative analysis

The Charterhouse

The Charterhouse

St. Bartholomewâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hospital

St. Bartholomewâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hospital

St. Christ Hospital

St. Christ Hospital

The Garden

Churchyard Interior Covered Exterior Plot Boundary 50m.

50m.

structure

c. 1836

interior

- exterior

comparative analysis

The Charterhouse

The Charterhouse

St. Bartholomewâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hospital

St. Bartholomewâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hospital

St. Christ Hospital

St. Christ Hospital

Private

Individual Dwellings

Semi-Private

Communal Living

Shared

Common Facilities

Open Space

Open Space

Plot Boundary

Plot Boundary

50m.

50m.

private

- public

individual-common

comparative analysis

The Charterhouse

The Charterhouse

St. Bartholomewâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hospital

St. Bartholomewâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hospital

St. Christ Hospital

St. Christ Hospital

boundary

circulation

Design Manual Guidelines & Principles

i. core

This principle considers the development to be the new social centre of the parish. Offering spaces to its inhabitants, but also its visitors. Through facilities, services and public spaces.

ii. progressive

The definition of the design should not be permanent, it should foresee gradual growth through additional building based on time phasing.

iii. shell

The composition of the design should serve as the foundation, but remain adaptive to future changes. The shell condition, is the structureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s adaptability to variations in programme and further extensions.

iv. thresholds

The buildings should be thought as a series of thresholds where buildings and open spaces create a progressive layering between public space, semipublic space and private space from the street to the central space.

v. composite

The building should be an accumulation of different architectural bodies, created by a series of geometrical elements, rather than one single block.

the role of the architecture

233

design manual

vi. permeability

The design plays with strong closed elements and open spaces. Access points are facilitates from the street to allow people to enter.

vii. openness

Strong geometrical shapes will create spaces in between, open or covered.

Where they join, where they split, these spaces will allow openness through see-through, double-heights and accidental design.

viii. smallness

Where the programme demands larger spaces or levels, the architecture breaks the scale by incorporating smaller elements.

ix. whole

A principle which derives from monastic habitation aiming for selfsufficiency, yet interconnected to the larger urban compound â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a city within a city. This concept questions the idea of a border that delimits the extent of the site and has specific access points. The hierarchy and placement of the entrance(s) is of high importance.

x. scalar

This principle is to say that all of the other aspects mentioned beforehand must be applied at different scales, from the urban plan to the single room.

the role of the architecture

235

The Church of Tomorrow As a Conclusion

The privileged position that the Church of England has sustained from its establishment until this day has allowed it to develop remarkable architecture. The interest of this dissertation was to use a prominent historical, but also in many ways contemporary institution in order to apply its potential to present day social concerns. From an institutional perspective, this intention has been widely studied, however its architectural counterpart has been quite overlooked. To illustrate the importance of this, the selected historic case studies proved highly effective when compared with the CofEâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s present developments. This analysis acknowledges the possibility of a consolidated religious institution to develop collective infrastructure adapted to contemporary society. The proposal intends for the Church to re-establish itself as a relevant public entity. The role of the Church of England for the near future is outlined within the notion of civil society; taking into account that people need support beyond of what the state can provide (housing, basic welfare services and education), this dissertation demonstrates how the Church of England can be a middle ground between the state and the individual.

These conclusions are not to say in any way that the Church should replace professional health-care provision on even a modest scale, but it can act in parallel as a support system.

The proposal St. Lukeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Parish Centre demonstrates the sustained potential of the CofE in London, as the provider of adequate space to foster community

engagement and cooperation. As church-buildings have been in the past, new parish centres can be examined as welfare-agents within the context of the United Kingdom and its territorial network of parishes. The development of the project on the pilot site was beneficial to examine its application on specific requirements, yet a similar approach could be replicated in other parishes across the nation. The parish-based involvement of the Church will evidently cause variations in its actions.

Nevertheless, the consideration of disadvantage population within its provision of services should not be disregarded. The churchâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s involvement must engage specifically and tailored at the scale of each parish. However, for such change to take place there needs to be a national movement and agreement of their role and the provision of it.

The purpose of investigating into forthcoming architectural typologies using historical arguments and case study analysis in comparison to contemporary socio-political contexts and the built environment was beneficial in the re-consideration of a development model and design brief. The methodology used along the dissertation, can also be replicated within diverse contexts and for different aims. Lastly, a broader conclusion from this work is that religious institution in western societies have the potential of developing unique architecture even today and therefore should not be left aside with the changing paradigms of religion, architecture practice transcends such belief.

237

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bibliography

Print Books & Journals

Kain, R. J. P., and Richard R. Oliver. The Tithe Maps of England and Wales: A Cartographic Analysis and County-by-County Catalogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Andersen, Michael Asgaard. Nordic Architects Write: A Documentary Anthology.

Abingdon: Routledge, 2008.

Kent, Neil. The Soul of the North: A Social, Architectural and Cultural History of the Nordic Countries, 1700-1940. London: Reaktion, 2000.

Bäckström, Anders, et al. Welfare and Religion in 21st century Europe: Volume 1 Configuring the Connections. Ashgate, 2010.

Lambeth Palace Library Research Guide for Church Property. Lambeth Palace Library, N.D. Print.

Barber, Bruno, and Christopher Thomas. The London Charterhouse. Museum of London Archaeology Service, 2002. MoLAS Monograph 10.

Moore, Norman. A Brief Relation of the Past and Present State of the Royal and Religious Foundation of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. Royal College of Physicians Library, 1895.

Blunden, Edmund. Christ’s Hospital, A Retrospect. London, 1823.

Millard, Percy William. The Law Relating to Tithes, and Payments in Lieu. Thereof.

London: Butterworth & Co., 1938.

Clapham, Alfred William, and Walter H. Godfrey. Some Famous Buildings and Their Story; being the results of recent research in London and elsewhere. Westminster: Technical Journals, 1913.

Davie, Grace. Religion in Modern Britain: A Persistent Paradox. 2nd ed., Wiley Blackwell, 2015. 1st. Edition 1994.

Davie, Grace. Predicting Religion: Christian, Secular and Alternative Futures. Ashgate, 2008.

Davies, Gerald S. The Charterhouse London. Monastery, Mansion, Hospital, A Historical Sketch. London: W. H. Smith & Son, 1911.

Normanus. An Illustrated Account of St. Bartholomew’s Priory Church, Smithfield. With a Sketch of Bartholomew Fair, St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, and the Prior’s Country Seat, Canonbury Tower, Islington. Bemrose & Sons, London. With Engravings by G. J. Evans.

Osborne, T. English Architecture or, the Public Buildings of London and Westminster with Plans of Streets and Squares. London, 1755.

Paulsson, Thomas. Scandinavian Architecture: Buildings and Society in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden from the Iron Age until Today. London: L. Hill, 1958.

Davis, E. Jeffries. The Parish Churches of The City of London. Ashgate, 2008.

Plummer, Henry. Nordic Light: Modern Scandinavian Architecture. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2012.

Drummond, Andrew Landale. The Church Architecture of Protestantism: A Historical and Constructive Study. Place of Publication Not Identified: Clark, 1934.

Sennett, Richard. Together: The Rituals, Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation. Allen Lane, an Imprint of Penguin Books, 2012.

The Report of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Commission on Urban Priority Areas by the Central Board of Finance of the Church of England. Faith in the City: A Call for Action by Church and Nation. Church House Publishers, 1985.

Stegers, Rudolf, and Dorothea Baumann. Sacred Buildings: A Design Manual. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2010.

Fletcher, Banister, and Dan Cruickshank. Sir Banister Fletcher’s a History of Architecture. Oxford: Architectural, 1996.

Stock, Wolfgang Jean, Albert Gerhards, and Klaus Kinold. Europäischer Kirchenbau 1900 - 1950 Aufbruch Zur Moderne = European Church Architecture 1900 - 1950.

Munich: Prestel, 2006.

Flew, Sarah. Philanthropy and the Funding of the Church of England: 1856-1914.

Pickering et Chatto, 2015.

Harasimowicz, Jan. Protestantischer Kirchenbau Der Frühen Neuzeit in Europa = Protestant Church Architecture in Early Modern Europe: Grundlagen Und Neue Forschungskonzepte.

Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2015.

Heathcote, Edwin, and Iona Spens. Church Builders. Chichester, West Sussex: Academy Editions, 1997.

Stock, Wolfgang Jean, Friedrich Achleitner, Friedrich Achleitner, and Friedrich Achleitner. Europäischer Kirchenbau, 1950-2000 = European Church Architecture 1950 2000. Munich: Prestel, 2002.

Wilson, John Iliff. The History of Christ’s Hospital. London, 1821.

Yeo, Geoffrey. Images of Bart’s. An Illustrated History of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in the City of London. Historical Publications Ltd., 1992.

Websites, Electronic Journals & News Andrew, Phil. “Tackling Loneliness and Isolation.” Church of England Communications, The Church of England, 9 Mar. 2016, cofecomms.tumblr. com/post/140736075672/tackling-loneliness-and-isolation.

Moreton, Cole. “What has the Church of England ever done for us?” Telegraph.

Dec. 2012. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9762642> Web. May 2017.

Boyle, Catherine. "How much land does the Church of England own?" The Guardian [UK] Apr. 2006 Web. May 2017. <https://www.theguardian.com/ world/2006/apr/28/religion.anglicanism>.

Parishioners Today British Social Attitudes Survey http://www.bsa.natcen. ac.uk/

Brown, Andrew. “The Church of England’s General Synod.” The Independent.

Web. July 1992. <http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/the-church-ofengland-general-synod-1533072.html] Accessed May 2017.

Carpen, Matthew. "No cafe, no pub, no doctor in London’s most isolated suburb.”

Web. May 2017. The Guardian. Aug. 2015.

"Church Commissioners Investment Property." The Church of England. N.P., N.D. Web. May 2017. <https://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/structure/ churchcommissioners/investment/property.aspx>.

“Church of England blessed by property boom.” 5/15/2017. https://www. ft.com/content/10eeca1c-fa4d-11e4-a41c-00144feab7de. Financial Times Christianity in the UK Faith Survey https://faithsurvey.co.uk/uk-christianity. html Croft, Steven. “Reform and Renewal: the Noddy and Big Ears Guide.” Church of England Communications, The Church of England, 17 Nov. 2015, blogs. oxford.anglican.org/reform-and-renewal-the-noddy-and-big-ears-guide/.

Engelke, Matthew. “Christianity and the Anthropology of Secular Humanism.”

Current Anthropology, Vol. 55, No. S10, The Anthropology of Christianity: Unity, Diversity, New Directions (December 2014), pp. S292-S301. The University of Chicago Press <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/677738> Web. April 2017.

Genders, Nigel. “Church Schools, Consultation and the Education Bill.” Church of England Communications, The Church of England, 17 Nov. 2015, www. churchofengland.org/more/education-and-schools.

Genders, Nigel. “Church Schools: No Problem.” Church of England Communications, The Church of England, 5 Mar. 2015, www.churchofengland. org/more/education-and-schools/church-schools-and-academies.

Greaves, Mark. “God’s management consultants: The Church of England turns to bankers for salvation.” The Spectator [UK] July 2015. Web. Accessed June 2017.

Paxman, Jeremy. “The Church of England’s flight to survive” Financial Times.

[UK] Sep. 2017 <https://www.ft.com/content/fced3f20-9294-11e7-a9e611d2f0ebb7f0> Accessed September 2017.

“Renewal & Reform.” The Church of England. N.P., N.D. Web. May 2017. <https://www.churchofengland.org/renewal-reform/about-rr/vision-narrative. aspx>.

Rudgard, Olivia. “Britain has more non-believers than ever before as Church of England Christians make up lowest-ever share.” The Telegraph. [UK] Sep. 2017. Web. < http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/04/britain-has-nonbelievers-ever-church-england-christians-make/ Accessed February 2018.

Smith, Adam. “Tithing Trouble.” The Economist [UK] Nov. 2003. Web. May 2017. <http://www.economist.com/node/2193397>.

Stamp, Gavin. “Sacred Architecture in a Secular Century.” Twentieth Century Architecture, No. 3 (1998), The Twentieth Century Society. <http://www.jstor. org/stable/41859539> JSTOR Web. April 2017.

Vessière, Gèraldine. "Who owns London?" Web log post. WordPress. N.P., Oct. 2013. Web. <https://canalordinaire.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/who-ownslondon/>.

Worthen, Jeremy. “The Roots of Renewal and Reform.” The Church of England, Jan. 2018. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2018-01/ The%20Roots%20of%20Renewal%20and%20Reform.pdf

Appendix Lutheran Church Transformations

1939-1945 Second World War 1952 Olympics

Independence 1917 Civil War 1918 War with Russia 1919

1900 World Fair Paris Finnish Pavilion

1956 Museum of Finnish Architecture

20th century

19th century

1812 Finland part of Russian Empire

Turku Cathedral

Tampere Cathedral

Turku, 1300-1827

Lars Sonck Tampere, 1907

Helsinki Cathedral

Carl Ludwig Engel Helsinki, 1852

Uspenski Cathedral Aleksey Gornostayev Helsinki, 1868 orthodox

Kallio Church

Lars Sonck Helsinki, 1912

Männistö Church Juha Leiviskä Kuopio, 1922

Orivesi Church

Kaija and Heikki Siren Orivesi, 1961

Tapiola Church

Aarno Ruusuvuori Espoo, 1965

Temppeliaukio Church Timo & Tuomo Suomalainen Helsinki, 1969

Kaleva Church Raili and Reima Pietilä Tampere, 1966

Myyrmäki Church Juha Leiviskä Vantaa, 1984

Männistö Church Juha Leiviskä Kuopio, 1922

Lutheran Church Transformations

Orivesi Church Kaija and Heikki Siren Orivesi, 1961

The Reformation not only influenced changes in religious architecture in Germany and other countries of Europe, but Scandinavia as well.

The most common churches built in this region were Parish Churches, each one as the centre of its community, as the main meetinghouse for different activities.

From Scandinavia the focus of the study was centred in Finland as shown on the timeline. Above are placed historical events that conformed the base for Finnish Modernism and on the lower half churches illustrating different representations. As background it is important to consider the influence that Germans had in the region as seen in Turku – the old capital of Finland - from the 14th century, a connection; which enabled Nordic students to be educated under German theological beliefs in the universities established in 1456 in Rostock and Greifswald. Thereafter Sweden transferred to Russia, its Finnish jurisdiction and the capital moved to the village of Helsinki in 1812. In order to develop the new city, Russia’s Tsar Alexander I, hired a German architect who had gained respect in St. Petersburg. Carl Ludwig Engel was appointed to design the Great New Church (now the Cathedral of Helsinki), and he did so with a Greek Cross Plan and a great cupola. The Tsar also commissioned the construction of a Russian Orthodox Church to be located just behind, which turned out to be a long nave resembling more a Lutheran Church.

Kallio Church Lars Sonck Helsinki, 1912

Tapiola Church Aarno Ruusuvuori Espoo, 1965

Having that historic background in mind, six case studies were chosen to analyse the influence from other countries in the territory as well as it own search for identity. The first example is Kallio Church before the country’s independence, Männistö Church right after in 1922 and four others – Orivesi Church, Tapiola Church, Kaleva Church and Temppeliaukio church - in the 60’s, the strongest era for Finnish Modernism after the Olympics and the foundation of the Finnish Museum of Architecture; the time span in between project is framed between war periods.

Temppeliaukio Church Timo & Tuomo Suomalainen Helsinki, 1969

Kaleva Church Raili and Reima Pietilä Tampere, 1966

appendix

249

Männistö Church Juha Leiviskä Kuopio, 1922

Orivesi Church Kaija and Heikki Siren Orivesi, 1961

Kallio Church Lars Sonck Helsinki, 1912

Tapiola Church Aarno Ruusuvuori Espoo, 1965

Community Space

Temppeliaukio Church Timo & Tuomo Suomalainen Helsinki, 1969

Kaleva Church Raili and Reima Pietilä Tampere, 1966

programme

Männistö Church Juha Leiviskä Kuopio, 1922

Orivesi Church Kaija and Heikki Siren Orivesi, 1961

The programme comparison shows the communal aspect (in yellow), which includes parish services, offices, community rooms and other secondary activities; the green colour which represent the exterior has only been incorporated when it is in direct relation to the building.

Nevertheless the focus will be on the following four spaces: the altar, the nave and the choir, which in conjunction conform the formal aspects of the church plus the communal space. The area dedicated to the altar marked in red colour varies depending on its composition, from a piece of furniture at the same level of the congregation – as seen on Männistö and Tapiola Churches- to a platform a few steps high– as seen on Orivesi, Kaleva and Temppeliaukio churches, or a larger space, as in Kallio Church. The space dedicated to the congregation in average conforms half of the programme.

Kallio Church Lars Sonck Helsinki, 1912

Tapiola Church Aarno Ruusuvuori Espoo, 1965

Altar Nave Choir Communal Exterior Other

Temppeliaukio Church Timo & Tuomo Suomalainen Helsinki, 1969

Kaleva Church Raili and Reima Pietilä Tampere, 1966

religious

+ communal

Plan

Section

None or Equal

None

Separated

Connected

Attached

Inside

Kallio Church

Differentiated Tapiola Church

Temppeliaukio Church

Similar MännistÜ Church

Kaleva Church

Orivesi Church

axis

Altar

Assembly

Assembly

Axis

Symmetry

Altar

Access

Access Aligned

Rotated

The matrix on the previous pages maps out a subject that has been studied throughout this research, the organization and the disposition between the religious and the communal aspect of the church. Within the case studies and the background the analysis has been focused on the plan, nevertheless the sectional differentiations play a relevant role as well. Therefore, the table organizes the examples on both categories: plan and section. The observation is on how the most classical model, Kallio Church stays back and the rest, in order to fit in the communal side to the programme rearrange the spaces through plan and sectional differences.

Symmetrical

Kallio Church

Orivesi Church

This second table is a conclusion of the relationship between the altarnave axis and the symmetry of the building as a whole. On the axial category the variation occurs when the altar-nave axis shifts away from the entrance, consequently creating a disturbance for the visitor. The classical model, as represented by Kallio Church on the graph, tends to stay within the aligned axis and the symmetry. As opposed to the other cases where the rotated axis or the asymmetrical edifice aid the design to shift away from the typical configuration.

MännistÜ Church Asymmetrical

Kaleva Church

Tapiola Church

Temppeliaukio Church

appendix