The question of waste and church architecture, you are quite right. Although I do sometimes despair that both those who erect the shed-churches and those who critique them are both falling for an extrinsically-valued, image-based notion of architecture, which drifts inevitably to a circular argument.. The ugly and cancerously massive warehouse churches are born out of a theology that considers church to be a goods-and-services industry, not a manner of being, and oh all sorts.. I don't understand how this jewish carpenter has inspired such ugliness, I don't think it is simply a matter of finding a happy medium, I think it is a matter of adjusting the DNA of such churches that promotes such obese and shallow architecture by putting in place imperatives to serve and suffer.. and to not commute.. Meh.
http://kester.typepad.com/signs/...-of-life-
i.html
http://
emergentvoyageurs.blog.co...gsuccess=1#cmts
http://phil-blogs.blogspot.com/
2...chitecture.html
http://phil-blogs.blogspot.com/2...ch-
dulwich.html
Hehe, I think it works the same way with schools. I can't stress how much ugliness to weigh down on one's spirit, the opposite effect an educator or pastor wants.
Everything seems so disposable now. Bastions of culture and spirituality should challenge that. A church should be built for the eternal like they did before. It might make the passerby think differently about his faith.
Wow..I was not with this great program.I am astonished to see its popularity.
You have posed a paradox, and all good paradoxes challenge you to solve them. If something is wasteful, then it does not serve a purpose-- not as a tithe, offering, nor any use. So calling an extravagant space wasteful is incorrect if its extravagance serves a purpose such as producing feelings, the goal of a great cathedral.
I like Cutler's efficient design for a church that feels spacious but came at quite an efficient cost:
http://www.cutler-anderson.com/p...urch/
index.html
Brett
Commenting by HaloScan
