We are using this page to discuss/share and track the design of our new parish church.
Quick Links that are relevant for the current discussion. (11/16/21):
- Church Patterns: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UdHPsdh1a8N8y_6FbtkRuJ5CWtiEq8Me1zSPuKPI37g/edit?pli=1
- Anti-Patterns: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G184CdyV45_Dvj-uObCQgLdeqnNmFZ4jvJD9f2Ir7KE/edit?pli=1
(use your google login so we can see who is saying what)
The Timeless Way of Building:
http://library.lol/main/7B0EB439990E88F83A4583821E415C7E
Audiobook: https://mega.nz/folder/gqJhzY6Z#yVvx4noEUQqB2ybuxZC71A (may need to rename downloaded file to .m4a in order to play)
A Pattern Language:
http://library.lol/main/6A09E611680C7FA35B6C06824962A9A1
Ch. 6 of The Ethics of Beauty: “The Mystical Architect”.
https://app.box.com/s/lqq7yy7clu4l978kldyntqdg2k5ckrg4
(note: pages 424-27 are a decent 3 page summary of The Timeless Way of Building;
pages 427-30 connect Alexander’s ‘Patterns’ to the Presence of God in all things)
Grounds level patterns summary:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16AfXvaHrt1rXAV-wBY5IKJh2jJc-xxb44okPPGQMAas/edit?usp=sharing
Some random photos from Russian Instagram I’ve been meaning to post. I thought this was an interesting and different direction for a chandelier than some of the work we’ve been considering/seen from Andrew.
I also really love how these choir stands are built and set up. Allows for much more visibility of the director. These seem to be pretty common among the Russian churches I follow online. Also I appreciate the warm lamps.
The clearing of trees is moving right along. See attached picture.
This is from Andrew’s facebook post. He installed some of his chandeliers last week, I gathered the pictures and put them here:
https://photos.app.goo.gl/hYsqgpgN3NRzo4Na9
This was the first time I saw them installed and really liked them – seems to mesh with the churches he put them in much better than I’ve seen so far. Couldn’t tell you why though. ?
This is what he wrote:
Last week I went up north to install chandeliers in two churches – St. Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Pittsburgh, and St. Mark Orthodox Church near Detroit. I worked very long days for a week and got all eight fixtures completed just in time for Christmas. Each project included one of my distinctive ‘choros’ chandeliers – a type of fixture that hangs from the perimeter of the cupola, invented in medieval Serbia. These ones are seventeen feet in diameter with 64 electric candles and 24 hanging oil lamps.
I think you might be liking these ones more because both of these churches have darker ceilings than some of Andrew’s? Versus some of his with plaster ceilings/walls (particularly where iconography has not yet been finished so everything is very white/bright), where the dark ironwork stands out more.
Incidentally, Susan and I were chrismated in the second church pictured (St Alexander Nevsky in Pgh) and I can attest that in person it is…not the prettiest church, to put it mildly. The photography is doing it some favors here. But I think the fact that the chandeliers are working (and in fact improving the space) attests both to Andrew’s artistic eye (in suiting a chandelier to a given space) and the powerful effect of his chandeliers, which have always reminded me of being in the Hagia Sophia–these broad, low-hanging chandeliers beneath very high, soaring ceilings, bespeaking something of heaven reaching down to earth. (Sorry for the poetics; it’s 11 pm on a fast-free Friday.)
Yes, I think both the dark interiors help and also not much light coming in from outside (overcast days in both cases). And no wall lighting. Makes it go from dark to semi-light as you from the perimeter of the church toward the middle.
And also the chandeliers are not significantly blocking the iconography behind them, as I’ve seen his chandeliers do in other places.
Of course, with his chain design, we wouldn’t be able to swing it at all. 🙂
That’s especially true when you’re up close. I went up to St. Marks when he was installing them and got to look at and hold the preassembled pieces. Besides the machine-stamped look, the other thing weird was the fake candle fixtures, complete with fake wax dripping down the sides of them, all stamped in plastic. (although honestly I’m not sure I can think of a better fixture to use just there.)
However, you don’t really notice either of those things as much once it’s up, and even less so once you step back from it a bit.
FWIW, Fr Joseph (at St. Gregory Palamas monastery) didn’t care for Andrew’s chandeliers and instead had one made by Aiden Hart. I’ve attached a picture. It’s a lot more curvy and flows and doesn’t have the CNC-cut look to it at all. (and, of course, it swings!)
Ooo, I like that!
I also really like this! The reason I’ve articulated not liking his chandeliers thus far is largely how dark the metal looks against a bright/light background. Doesn’t seem to fit. I hadn’t seen the quality up close though.
Here is the latest floorplan from Andrew:
https://app.box.com/s/1fvzpc3uxwglgnefj3tje1mmvsnfubsc
I’ve attached an overlay of our current church (red lines) over the new church. Each square is 1 square foot.
It’s a bit hard to calculate standing-floor-space because of all the pillars and things, but my current guess is a 974 sq ft increase on the main floor (from 1238 to 2212). That’s about a 78% increase.
The balcony size is roughly doubling (260 to 525), plus the walkway between the two.
And there’s also the Narthex, about 375 more square feet of lingering space.
So, all told, that’s quite a larger space increase than I was thinking we we’re talking about.
Not sure what to think about that….
Since I’ve finally bothered to login again… I think this additional space is great! Looking at the main floor, I think what you’re essentially doing is moving the choir out of our existing amount of standing space–that’s where the main additions are in this layout. And if you think about places people are reluctant to stand (close to the iconostas/ambon, or in the middle “aisle,” or up near the front icon veneration “paths”), this layout, on the opposite “wing” from the choir (I know there is a proper word for this but again, 11 pm on a fast-free Friday) (thus also all the parentheticals; I apologize) gives you “up-front” space that is NOT in the middle of those paths/points of standing-resistance. Frankly, I think I’d feel nervous if we were looking at a building plan that didn’t give us at least this much additional standing space.
The thing I’ve always disliked about Andrew’s chandeliers is that they look machine made, specifically CNC water jet cut pieces of sheet metal instead of hand worked iron. While I’m not opposed to technologically complex, computer controlled, labor saving tools in general, I do think their products, especially in such a central and visible place, detract from the aesthetics of Orthodox Church architecture and design.
A small miracle – we got designs from Andrew!
Here are a bunch of pictures he sent me:
https://app.box.com/s/7wo70ig9liwi9nqf1s94nn6gmrabcyuo
I’ll share them at the parish meeting tomorrow, if I can get the tech to work.
Here is the email he sent with them:
————————————————
————————————————
————————————————
?
Hi Fr. Joshua,
I’ve made a great deal of progress. The interior of the church is essentially fully designed, and I’ve totally rebuilt the 3D model with all the current details. The iconostasis and choros are still placeholders, but everything that’s actually part of the architecture is accurately modeled.
Attached you’ll find a current floor plan and 37 screenshots of the model.
A note on the windows: They look a bit plain in the screenshots, but the idea is that they’ll be fitted with leaded glass – mostly clear, but in decorative patterns. I attached a couple photos to give you an idea of what the glass will be like.
A small miracle – we got designs from Andrew!
Here are a bunch of pictures he sent me:
https://app.box.com/s/7wo70ig9liwi9nqf1s94nn6gmrabcyuo
I’ll share them at the parish meeting tomorrow, if I can get the tech to work.
Here is the email he sent with them:
————————————————
————————————————
————————————————
?
Hi Fr. Joshua,
I’ve made a great deal of progress. The interior of the church is essentially fully designed, and I’ve totally rebuilt the 3D model with all the current details. The iconostasis and choros are still placeholders, but everything that’s actually part of the architecture is accurately modeled.
Attached you’ll find a current floor plan and 37 screenshots of the model.
A note on the windows: They look a bit plain in the screenshots, but the idea is that they’ll be fitted with leaded glass – mostly clear, but in decorative patterns. I attached a couple photos to give you an idea of what the glass will be like.
Andrew was ready for another short meeting yesterday. The columns got smaller and changed a bit, the balconies got connected, and a few other things. But I’m having trouble getting pictures to illustrate so I’ll post again once I have them.
Here’s a short lecture from Andrew Gould on some of the side aspects of church beauty: textiles (icon stand covers, etc), flowers, embroidery, carpentry, and so on.
In particular I enjoyed the attempt to bring together the ethos of Orthodox traditional beauty with the beauty/style/tradition of American craft traditions.
https://orthodoxartsjournal.org/lecture-exploring-church-as-the-center-of-our-life/
I have a few questions. Will that dampen the acoustics? The balconies come quite far forward. I wonder if that is a big reason why sound does not carry well in the monastery church. I’m also wondering how much the arches coming down from the ceiling are going to dampen the acoustics. Are the apses smaller in this version?
Andrew told me up the other day and said he’s full-time on our design now.
He had done a rough 3D-modeled of the inside of the church and asked me to jump on zoom and have a look.
The pictures I attached are two from the rough modeling software, one facing east and one west.
There are no full renderings of ours yet, but I also included two such pictures he gave me of another church he’s working on that is almost the same as ours at the front.
The only surprise change he made was that he split our balcony into two small balconies, as he didn’t want any balcony over the main doors. With the proportions/size of this church, it felt-too cave-like to him, and he didn’t like how you couldn’t see the dome/arches/etc when you came in until you walked half way in. (I kind of thought that would be a cool effect, but I can also see how that could go too far. maybe? hmm.)
Our previously planned balcony was of a size that it was going to need two staircases (fire code). We had a discussion back then of maybe having one of them be outside, to save floor space, and so on. Smaller balconies (that hold 50 or less) are only required to have a single staircase, but since there are two balconies now, it’s basically the same thing as far as stairs go.
Anyway, I told him to forge ahead! 🙂
Off the bat, two balconies seems really impractical to me. I could envision a lot of scenarios where you go upstairs looking for someone or something and end up having to go all the way back down and up the other side (ie, looking for a kid during service). It might also double our stair problems, though I suppose we might not have been able to to avoid that anyway.
The cave effect also seems like it has equal but different problems in each scenario. Taking the monastery as an example, maybe you see everything when entering the church, but the two side balconies seem to direct people to stand almost exclusively under them on each side, which means you get the cave effect for *all of the service* instead. Even though the staircases look like they take up most of that space in this rendering, the balconies still have that same effect of making the whole center space feel like an aisle/walkway, even though it’s way too much floor space to be reserved for that. I think it would still feel vaguely uncomfortable to stand in that center space, similar to the monastery.
I’m having a hard time picturing the problem with one back balcony. Would St. Tikhon’s be a good comparison? That certainly doesn’t constrain where people stand, and to my mind it has a *lot* less of a cave effect than the monastery does. Would the square footage of the balcony we’re planning come further forward?
I really love the beautiful wood panels shown on the railings, though.
Here’s a good video of a tour through an Orthodox Church, talking about architecture & iconography, etc. It’s Jonathan Pageau and Fr Josiah Trenham.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oi7f35oSkI
Do we have any idea of the total cost of the church at Holy Cross in West Virginia?
Or has Andrew said anything about a cost estimate?
I’m at a professional development seminar on capital fundraising so I’m thinking about our project too…
I asked Andrew that very question while we were walking around the building when I was there, but he wasn’t sure himself, and I wasn’t able to meet with the abbot at all. Andrew guessed 4-5 million.
I’ve talked myself out of worrying about that number too too much, because our building is nowhere near what they are building. Besides it being larger, it’s got a huge bell tower, and full refectory in the basement, and it’s on a hill, and all of their labor and materials are coming from very far away which is really increasing their costs. Not to mention all the money they lost of their first contractor who took off.
Once we get some real plans, we need to take them to builders in the area to get some estimates from them so that we have a target number. I think (hope!) we’re getting close to that point, so I’ve also been thinking/reading and talking to people about capital fundraising. But soon we’ll need to sit down and map it out more specifically.
Alexander lent me his manual “Principles & Techniques of Fundraising” that he got from an “IUPUI”? conference, which is a real page turner! 🙁
Anyway, let’s chat more about this at parish council on Saturday.
Okay, thanks!
Yeah, I’m not worried about the numbers either, just curious. The seminar I’m at is out of the same IUPUI Fund Raising School. They have some formulas and charts to figure out how many donors you need of certain $ amounts to reach a goal. Maybe doesn’t apply perfectly for us, but thinking about it is something to keep my brain alive during the sessions. 🙂
After pestering Andrew last week, I got this reply today:
—————————————————–
Hi Fr. Joshua,
You’re finally at the top of the pile! I’ll plan to send you new drawings before the end of this month. By then I should have gotten through most of the design development and 3D modeling.
Thank you for your patience.
Andrew
When I visited Andrew a couple weeks ago, we emailed afterward and I was able to get the file for the floorplan. It’s probably not the latest iteration, but here it is anyway.
1box=1foot. So the whole footprint is 60×100 (from porch to apse).
For reference, the hall is 50×100.
I’m thinking about maybe setting this up in the parking lot with 2x4s stands as we did before.
Andrew’s building at Holy Cross is coming along, see updates at their facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/holycrosswv
I noticed in the pictures that Andrew is there right now. I texted him and he said he’d be there until Wednesday afternoon. So I’m going to drive down there tomorrow (Tuesday) so that I can be there for Wednesday morning services and after breakfast Andrew will show me around the building. We’ll see what I can learn. And of course the more subtle intention is to get back on his radar. 🙂
Here are a bunch of pictures of the ongoing construction of the church at Holy Cross Hermitage in WV. It’s one of Andrew’s that uses similar construction as he’s planning for us:
https://app.box.com/s/na47kw47f035lw0lhschru8p3ymewpbr
Here are a bunch of pictures of courtyards (or other outsides/facades) I came across during my Holy Land trip that I though might inform our later courtyard design:
https://app.box.com/s/k0wwiifts7i7b7x97sp3976xjk5xxbw5
I’ll gather together a separate collection of pictures that I took that I found had interesting architecture in various ways, but that will take me a little longer.
Is this Comic Sans in mosaic form?? Trippy.
The courtyards are gorgeous, on the whole, but they do make me wonder what an ideal courtyard would look like for Michigan’s climate, i.e., how to create one that wouldn’t just look dead and unwelcoming half the year. I wonder what they do in Russia, etc.
So what I’m hearing is we’ve gotta hustle so we can be the *first* parish in the OCA with a solid stone church? 😉
Yes 🙂
Last point discussed with Andrew on 1/24/2023 – dome configuration.
Some churches dedicated to the Ascension paint the Ascension scene in the dome instead of a Pantocrator. At first glance it’s still basically a Pantocrator (Christ in the middle of the dome blessing). However, as you follow the curves of the dome down, all the figure from the Ascension icon are in between all the windows. So basically a 3D Ascension/Pantocrator. Pretty neat. See attached pictures for examples, or the links below if you want to VR yourself around some of those churches.
The reason this matters at this point in the design is because in the usual dome window configuration, there is an East window, which offsets the whole lower window scene pushing the central figure, the Theotokos, off-center. (see picture). Andrew’s idea was to turn the windows so that the east wall of the dome is *not* a window, but rather a space between the windows, where you’d paint the Theotokos, thus centering the whole thing.
This seems like a fine idea because, even if we opted out of this idea in our iconography later, the windows are all still perfectly symmetric/normal.
https://www.blagofund.org/Archives/Pec/Demetrios/VR/
https://www.blagofund.org/Archives/Pec/Apostles/VR/
I love the Ascension dome idea!
I’m open to pretty much anything for the exterior, though I’ll chime in in agreement with Andrew that I’d like to avoid fake exposed timber rafters.
This type really makes sense given our our patronal feast.
Notes from meeting with Andrew Gould on 1/24/2023:
(thanks to building design secretary, Anastasia Farison!)
Stone cladding vs timber vs stucco—materials, aesthetic, etc
Stone type not exactly yet determined. We’ll have different options from the quarry. Particulars still need to be researched. The stone that Andrew drew is just a fill-in.
We can still do half stone and half stucco if it comes to that. It’s half our aesthetic decision, half a cost decision. If we decided to stucco the top portions, dome, etc, it could save us some money. It’s something that can be on the table in the future if we run out of money or if we want to do all or only some stone cladding.
Many old Michigan buildings are partially stone and partially brick. Andrew showed us some beautiful old Michigan buildings where the main portion of the wall is stone and all the edges and lintels are fun brick patterns. Also the arches and finer work are much easier to accomplish in brick if the stone is large and rough.
What is the roof material/color?
No decision there. It’s just a fill-in—we need to decide that kind of thing.
Roof overhang? Exposed timber rafters?
“Impossible to do that in a way that is structurally authentic.” We won’t *have* rafters that will naturally stick through the walls to create overhang, like an old building (which would have poor insulation). In our area we’re going to need a significant amount of insulation in the roof, which thickens it to the point where the rafter is much lower than the roof overhang. This means that while he *could* do it, any kind of overhang/rafter would be structurally fake, complicate things considerably, and compromise the integrity of the insulation.
We can gutter it or not. Those can be quite inconvenient—get clogged with leaves, overflow, etc. Can just put a gravel ‘gutter’ around the perimeter for water to fall on. (such as at Dormition Monastery)
Much overhang not necessary on an all-stone building, and not usual on Orthodox Churches, except for Romanian, because they like icons on their outside walls.
(However, if some of the building ends up being stucco, then we might want to revisit this overhang question…)
Handicap ramps?
Hasn’t thought through site planning things, where it will fit best on our land. This drawing wasn’t meant to depict that yet, and he hasn’t forgotten.
More windows? In that balcony area? Altar window?
Yes, in the 3 east apses there is a window in each one, wasn’t visible in that rendering.
There will be quite a lot of light through the dome and the big apse windows, so Andrew thinks we won’t particularly need more windows further back (which would presumably only send more light mostly into the balcony). (He likes the center to be well-lit, and should get darker as you proceed down any transept.)
Transition to Walkway/ possible hall vestibule?
Not his radar yet. Talked about it only generally.
Possible to make it all masonry as well, but certainly not as cheap. We like the timber framing, just asking about transitioning—seems that will probably be a later date problem. Phase 2, if we even get the church built.
A vestibule is a whole new idea to Andrew, he’d like to think about it and see how we can tie it into the walkway.
Front steps
We can widen the steps outside the arch as they come down so they’re not so narrow.
What’s next?
He still has much work to do, mostly we’re waiting on him.
Have civil engineer, consultants lined up, etc. Zoning rules, stormwater rules, utilities…
The township has approved our stuff, Jeannette looked at the rest of it, we’re good all the way up to the point where we actually start pulling permits.
We could probably get Jeannette involved at this point, Andrew can give her the building footprint so she can start looking into more details.
We want official plans so we can get official numbers from a builder and go ahead with fundraising, not just pretty presentation.
We’ve got some more design work to do, very helpful to figure out our stone (what kind, masons, how thick, how big is the stone). We could get a cost estimate for just the stone cladding from a mason— HOW much extra money for all stone vs. half stone, etc.
Andrew promises to keep working on ours, along with a couple other churches.
Cool new idea:
Should we turn the dome windows 22.5 degrees in order to have an “Ascension Pantocrator”??? Find out on the next episode! Separate post coming for that…
Sorry for the short notice, but we have a meeting with Andrew at 8pm. Let’s meet at 7:30 to take our own pulse beforehand. Church basement.
Andrew has been working on our design this week. He sent us a rendering of the exterior for comments. He wrote me the following:
I’ve attached the drawing.
I love it!! The different levels, the outdoor enclosed space, that it is 100% clearly an Orthodox Church…all of it! What material will the roof be to be that color?
That use of stone is beautiful (and I enjoy his description of the Michigan inspiration). Would it look a lot like the monastery’s church exterior?
The porch is different than I’ve been envisioning–a little more enclosed, and less use of timber than I think has been on some of our concept drawings. I’m not sure I mind that–if anything, I like the extra solidity and emphasized space that this has– but I’d be interested to discuss. My immediate reaction is to want wider steps, especially in front. Another thing I notice is the abrupt transition between porch stone and walkway timber, though I like the variety of all those lovely stone arches and then the sharper angles in the roof and the wood.
I also keep wondering if that’s enough windows in the church as a whole. I assume Andrew knows what he’s doing, but some of them look sparse. Maybe it’s good ambience to have the most light towards the center of the church?
I also expected timber pillars on the porch and more upper windows. I know the light streaming in on the south side will be beautiful, and in some ways more beautiful with fewer windows, but we are used to a bright sanctuary, and I would like to see more upper windows in the nave.
That said, I really like this.
I really like it. Any handicap ramps though?
If anyone has any more questions or comments on this, send them today. I’ll compile them and send them all to Andrew later tonight.
I also thought there would be more wood on the front of the church, and is the entire building cladded in stone? It seems like a lot. Maybe more wood would help balance it out. Either that or more than one texture on the building.
I love it! I like the idea of a little more wood but I also think that the stone is going to provide a lot of wonderful texture not just because it’s stone but also because of the different sizes of the blocks. Is this the color of stone proposed? There will probably be some color variations?
I am trying to summarize our thinking to Andrew about having more timber on the porch, but I’m not sure I know what I’m asking for …
When I talked with him earlier this year, I gave him some of the more recent renderings we had done, and all of them had solid stone porches. The last time we tossed around an all-timber porch was several iterations ago before Andrew got on board. So he gave us what we asked for. :-/
It’s only now when I look at his building that I’m becoming conscious of what some of you mentioned … so I’m trying to figure out why our rendering made the transition from stone to timber less stark than his seems to be ….
Hmmm …
I think it must be because we put all those curved timber things sticking out from all sides under a large roof overhang. Whereas his roof hardly has any overhang at all.
In our design, the building was mostly stone, but had hints of timber peeking out all over, so it appeared to me as a “stone-and-timber” church, whereas his is pure uninterrupted stone.
So maybe that’s why ours blended into a timber walkway more seamlessly?
Is that what’s going on?
I really do love the stone, but maybe he overdid it on the stone?
The other area where it seems over-stoned to me is that it goes all the way up to the dome. When I saw that I thought, wow, that’s going to be too heavy for those columns, and that’s when I noticed the buttresses. So I’m guessing those inside columns have grown in size?
I’m thinking …. could the top part of the church (the tower part leading to the dome) maybe be stucco or timber or something?
I’m just thinking out loud here. It feels like we need a meeting to do some communal out-loud thinking.. Tomorrow? 8pm?
But please reply now if you have any helpful thoughts. I want to send him some sort of reply to make sure he stays our our project and doesn’t get distracted!! :-)}
I pestered Andrew last week with an email, since he said he’d be back to us in November. He replied today with this:
————————————————————————————–
Hi Fr. Joshua,
I’m nearly done wrapping up the ongoing projects I mentioned. I’m done with the big church in Portland for now, and another I was working on in Utah has been put on long-term hold. So I should have a lot of undivided time to attend to your project after Christmas. (I will probably get back on yours before Christmas, but don’t want to promise anything just yet).
Thanks again for your patience! I do apologize for the long wait.
Andrew
Here’s a new interview with Andrew Gould. Sounds like he’s gotten even better at talking about this stuff
https://www.instituteofsacredarts.com/luminous/2022/11/30/andrew-gould-building-beauty
Glory to Jesus Christ!
This post is about the hall remodel, rather than church design, but the topic is more appropriate to this group of people, so I’m posting it in the church design blog.
Since we’re delayed on the building design, maybe we could do some group thinking about part of the hall design.
First load the new floor plan into your memory:
https://uofi.app.box.com/s/cz7bam1x63d5yeo02vfgohtmynxz68b5
The large main room and kitchen are not in the current scope, but everything else inside is. I’m thinking that the bathrooms and the office and classroom can be pretty generic/utilitarian, ie, same ceiling, lights, tiles on the walls in the bathroom walls but otherwise standard sheetrock walls, etc. I haven’t been giving those areas too much thought. But if anyone wants to weigh in those things feel free.
(Actually, Luke and I are pretty excited that we’ve designed a pretty pipe-clog-proof and super low maintenance bathroom setup! He said something like, “it’s one thing to put in bathroom pipes for someone else, but it’s quite another when you know you’ll probably be the maintenance guy for those bathrooms for the rest of your life.”)
But concerning the rest of the remodel I think some groupthink would be good. We’ve talked a lot about entry way spaces and transitions, and also about what makes a room work as far as design and flow. So put on your Christopher Alexander pattern-language thinking caps and look at the “entry area” and the “reception area”/”bookstore/library”.
What I have had in mind is something like the monastery’s reception room (but not as over-the-top-fancy). A comfortable living-room kind of area, sofas, coffee table, lamps? A large window. A rug? a coffee pot? Pictures on the wall. Flexible enough to host an Adult Ed or be a Sunday school space, and somehow also formal enough to be welcoming to visitors and inviting to someone wanting to peruse for books, icons, etc.
And likewise the “entry area”. It’s kind of a mud-room so mostly a practical passage to the other places, but how could we make it be a welcoming transition space? Is it even enough of a space? (should we consider even adding a 10×10 room right outside the main double doors, as a transition to the walkway between the buildings?) Should the door from the entry area to the hall be larger? What kind of doors? half glass, all glass? Should there be doors at all at every each place where I put one on the plan? Or just walk-through?
What should we do with the walls and ceiling in these spaces? Colors? Textures? Wood? suspended or sheetrock ceiling? Or at least what should we avoid? Some sort of pinterest theme connecting these spaces together? 🙂 Also, the ceilings are 10′ everywhere, which seems excessive to me for spaces like these, so I was going to bring them down to 9′ or so. (saves heat/AC too.) All the floors in the remodeled area are getting the same concrete coating, but we could do something classier over the top of that in certain areas if we want to.
The walls around the bathrooms are set in stone, but the rest of them haven’t been placed yet, so there’s still (a little) time to adjust those things. I’d love to hear your thoughts, either here or in person. If there’s enough interest I’d be glad to host a meeting. (Otherwise you’ll all be stuck with my personal aesthetic design choices for years to come! Mu-ha-ha-ha…..)
Attached to this post are some pictures that show the finalized drawings of a church Andrew is doing for a Greek church in Oregon. You might remember seeing some of these because he showed earlier versions of them to us at our meeting with him this summer. It’s relevant to us because many elements of this church are what we’ve asked him for: the central square layout, the middle pillars/pendentives/dome, the four central arches, the wood ceiling on the transepts, etc, Obviously ours is much smaller, and cruciform instead of basilica, etc. But it works to get a sense of what we hope to be looking at . . . some day …. :-/
Here’s what he wrote about this church:
Here’s my latest church design – for Saint John the Baptist Greek Orthodox Church near Portland, OR. This design provides room for 400 worshippers, some seated, some standing.
It was important to the parish that the church look recognizably Greek Orthodox, while also expressing the prevalence of timber construction in the Pacific Northwest. My design combines a timber-roofed basilica with a great Byzantine dome – a hybrid that never existed historically, but which some modern churches attempt. I worked hard to make this combination look graceful and inevitable – a worthy American contribution to the tradition.
It’s looking good! Glad he’s going to be able to use this to help with the Holy Ascension project too.
Finally got an email response from Andrew, here it is:
Hi Fr. Joshua,
Sorry I haven’t had much to report lately. Here’s what’s going on.
At Holy Cross Monastery in West Virginia, after a year of delays and switching contractors, construction is suddenly plowing ahead. And the monks have requested some significant changes to the building while it’s under construction. So I’ve had to scramble to keep on top of it, and get them updated and completed drawings. It’s a massive and complicated construction site, with no one locally in charge, so it’s been consuming a lot of my time. I attached some photos.
Meanwhile, a year ago I promised to provide design renderings for St. John the Baptist Greek Orthodox Church in Portland, Oregon. They just recently informed me that they have to have those for a 25th-anniversary celebration with their bishop at the end of next week. So I’ve been scrambling to design this massive church for that deadline. Attached a screenshot of that also.
Meanwhile, St. Maximus Church in Denton, TX, which I conceptually designed several years ago, and which has been held up in land-use permit issues all this time, has suddenly been approved by the city to move forward. The approvals are time-limited, so there is huge pressure on me to complete the design and hand over the drawings to the local architect of record. So that’s going to consume all of next month.
Hopefully I can resume your project in November. I would much prefer to be working on your project, because I’m quite excited about that design. But I’m already working 10-hour days 6 days a week, and there’s only so much I can do.
The good news is that I’m working on standardizing my details and specifications for all these churches. My work on Holy Cross Monastery largely consists of detailed research and design specifications related to windows, doors, timber details, plasters, flooring, etc., all of which is work that I won’t have to do again on subsequent churches. Having actually built one of these masonry-and-timber-frame churches, I’ll have figured out how to do every detail already. So in that sense, I am working on your project, along with all the others, in parallel.
Andrew
This article on beautiful gardens seems relevant to our endeavors:
https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/?m=1#.YvKUcyX3aEd
Update from building design meeting on 8/2.
Andrew sent me some drawings today, mostly the same as what we saw at the meeting with a few small updates. He put in the staircase, and elongated the west part of the nave slightly, and I’m not sure what else.
It’s here:
https://uofi.box.com/s/zn7czytv0446fq20mxf0fbzyt99s69t9
Anastasia took notes from the meeting, here they are:
—————————————————————-
4 foot round columns, circular Byzantine style (probably plastered, with icons)
Nice large transition b/tw timber roofing and plastered pendentives/dome
Equal in 4 directions—relatively short timber stretches w/out needing trusses (thus less expensive and breaking up the space less). (update from fr Joshua: he has since made the back (west) part of the nave slightly longer than the other three directions, see pic.)
Current balcony is 250 sq ft. That footage would be very small proportionally for a new balcony—probably at least slightly bigger.
Horseshoe shape? We like it.
Fire codes want 2 staircases, if accommodating 50+ people or larger than 250 sq ft anyway. We can claim there will be pews (taking up space and therefore fewer people), fudge the code numbers, etc. If open plan then we really need 2 staircases.
Thinking about having one nice one instead, and then a fire escape style one on the outside. Make the staircase a beautiful object itself, maybe wooden balcony. Brought up the idea we previously talked about: a staircase that turns, with a platform also looking out over the church. Andrew willing to work on that.
Talked about deacon’s path through choir. Where to put choir for that to make sense. More of a behavior pattern than an architectural problem, which we probably just need to decide when we’re in the space.
Talked about altar space: how to use. Father asks if a way to put a proskemedia nook in the wall, keeping the two sides for sacristies; second preference is proskemedia in left apse; least desirable is a second table in the altar space. We definitely want to be able to access sacristies WITHOUT being in the altar, so they’re practical storage spaces available to anyone. Plenty of space as is, which Andrew was particular about asking.
We like a window in the central altar apse. Shouldn’t mess with the iconography: plenty of room for platitera above, appropriate iconography to either side.
Narthex:
We like the nesting of a soft narthex. But we need junk space, coat closet (bc of traffic—can’t go all the way to trapeza to hang up coats).
Discussing bathrooms again. Maybe one single bathroom?
Bathroom at one end (has to be north side for plumbing), coat and utility closets at other. We want a lot of glass in the center of the narthex/nave wall : look like nice paned wooden doors. Two in the center to open and function as doors, two on each side fixed (as windows). Solid walls on the sides of the narthex, around closets etc.
Acoustics: no curves, but lots of reflective surfaces in different materials, so should still be very nice acoustics. Much more ‘live’ than we have now.
Dome options: More Russian (helmet dome, not super duper twisting onion); Greek dome (just round dome and a cross). We’re not too preferential either way: on our size dome, both look nice without going too far Russian or Greek.
Ductwork: Andrew likes to put it under the floor. There’s not really another option for us, without attic space. He wants to know if we really need forced air? Can we just do it with radiators and radiant heat? With thicker walls and a naturally cooler church, we may be able to manage with just dehumidifiers, but we reeeeallly don’t want to bank on it. We think we’d install ducts either way, just so we have them if we need.
Andrew doesn’t like radiant heating. Looking at 50 years til you have to tear up your floor for maintenance, but not for a church you want to keep for 300 years. So it would be forced air through the floor and hot water radiators above the floor. Luke saying radiant heat is much more efficient. Lots of details I didn’t get. We still need ducts. (note from Fr. Joshua, I think radiant heating is good, not sure why Andrew thinks the pipes will need to be ripped out alter. needs research.)
Three options: a crawl space; ducts buried in the dirt below the slab (modern way usually); utility troughs (concrete troughs in the floor with lids and ducts laid in them).
Thinking we’d like the crawl space to get in there and maintenance things ourselves. Maybe an annoying amount of work, but possible.
Does the crawl space have to be above grade or not? We’re comfortable having it drop below grade: we’re on top of a hill, it’s very sandy, and we can have a sump for water if it somehow turns out to be an issue. Crawl spaces here are often 54” deep bc they’re already going that deep with the footers (against frost), or might as well go 8” with a full basement under part of it. Half basement maybe?
Structure on top of basement? Wood framing, steel/concrete slab (especially if we’re thinking of a stone/tile floor—are we?). If we want a wood floor we can just do a wood structure and sub-floor. Andrew tells us not to assume one is cheaper. Argument for steel/tile is that it’s pretty great to have a non-flammable floor, especially in an Orthodox church.
Mechanical room in crawl space? We think yes. How to enter crawl space? A cellar door type thing from the exterior for access, maybe also a small access from the inside. We don’t want to take up space on the inside with a whole stair down to the basement.
Structural materials:
Outside: concrete block stuccoed over. We’re interested in stone cladding (not just the 1” stone veneer), which would make the walls significantly thicker. We’re feeling in favor of stone, huge thick walls are fine. Maybe 5-6” stone, layer of foam, 8” concrete block. Andrew tells us we’re not totally crazy. Also wondering about part stone/part stucco options, maybe just stone on bottom half. Andrew’s going to think about that and possibly mock up some images.
Outside:
We need a topographical survey for the land. Andrew strongly suggests finding a civil engineer to get us started on the requirements from the county/ etc.
Andrew wants to know if we need to have steps up to the church. In our previous discussions we liked the sense of transition from the outside to the inside sacred space, but Andrew suggests just berming up the land around the church at a slight slope (this is what he usually does), so that it is still a higher point and a slight transition, but still handicapped friendly and not raising the church itself by a couple steps.
Finally:
Andrew wants to know what the next goal is. Pretty renderings for fundraising? A hearty yes, but— He thinks if we want it to run smoothly, we should be getting in contact with contractors and engineers and have them at the ready, or else it might be a significant delay to actually get things moving. To do that would have its own costs, but they could weigh in on meetings with lots of good advice, especially with how to do things in our area.
We at least want to pause for a little bit after getting renderings, because we need to see if we get *any* money and start getting off the ground.
Thank you for the update, sounds great! A little concerned about the ductwork…it would be nice to have appropriate temperatures inside. I was reminded how not great it is to need fans to cool it down, both when the AC went out and when we visited the Saunders with their very loud wall unit, it’s impossible to hear anything not sung. Because we are regularly packed, it feels extra important to me, but also maybe even more so being a woman with the potential of being pregnant in the summer again haha.
Thank you for the update, sounds great! A little concerned on the duct work…I was reminded how much of a bummer it is to need fans when the AC went out and when we visited the Saunders with their very loud wall unit. Makes it nearly impossible to hear anything not sung. It would be nice to continue to have a way to fully regulate temperature without a lot of noise. We are regularly packed that even with more space it would be difficult to make it comfortable enough. And I don’t think I’m just saying that as a woman with the potential of being pregnant in the summer again haha.
We have a meeting with Andrew tomorrow (Tuesday) at 7pm, we’ll meet at the church.
He says he has some “general drawings”, just trying to make sure we’re ok with the direction he’s going before he continues. So I’m not sure what to expect exactly.
Sounds good.
Stumbled across this very beautiful little stone church (in France): https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2010/02/russian-iconographer-fr-gregory-krug.html
Thought it was worth noting since stone Orthodox churches are relatively rare.
Another photo.
Yes, please!
Here is Andrew’s latest design for a parish in Orlando, Florida.
https://newworldbyzantine.com/sacred/saint-stephen-the-protomartyr-longwood-fl/
I like it, but it does make me realize that I’m quite committed to our layout with the balcony overhanging the back section of the main floor, variety in ceiling heights, and the inset space created by the transept. This Florida design feels like one big square/rectangle, without differentiation in the space apart from the pillars.
I did note that, though they’ve chosen to put bathrooms in the church, they’re separated from the narthex by an additional hallway. I appreciate that both on a “holiness gradient” level in approaching the nave, and because it keeps the sounds of flushing toilets and running water farther from the nave.
P.S. Father, it’s saying this link to our 3D model of the building is invalid: https://app.modelo.io/share-token/1499215744921305088?source=copylink Do you have an updated link?
> This Florida design feels like one big square/rectangle, without differentiation
> in the space apart from the pillars.
That’s apparently what they wanted. But we talked about it and he knows we do NOT want that. :-).
Although I do like pillars large enough that you can paint icons on them, as well as, as you mentioned, bathrooms that aren’t too near the narthex doors.
> it’s saying this link to our 3D model of the building is invalid: …
That site was not free, there was a non-negligible monthly fee, and since we had sorta paused design discussion I suspended my account there. But if Andrew gives us 3D models to check out then I can activate it again and put them there. Or I might look around to see if there is something more affordable or free that offers the same service.
> Did he say how much time on average he’s been booking on other projects?
> Might the $200/hr rate end up being a better deal than a flat $25k fee?
I only got a vague answer on that, it was something like, “well it depends on how much we have to go back and forth”.
But we talked about it and he knows we do NOT want that. :-).
Good to know. 🙂
Got it on the website.
Hmm, okay. I guess it encourages us to be clear and concise in our communications.
Glory to Jesus Christ!
I chatted with Andrew about the work. We didn’t talk much about the exterior or site plan, his idea is to start on the inside and let that inform the rest of the design. He is working up some ideas and will let me know when he’s ready to present them to us, which sounds like it will take the form of a zoom meeting.
He showed me some pictures of another church he’s working on:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/cyf2gf8dsjsrqc7/AABT7FpDRs9miu11-0oXckDYa?dl=0
That one is much bigger than what we want, but it seems to share the basic idea of what we’re after: a dome, 4 main columns holding it up, and timbers holding up the roof in all 4 directions. We’d subtract the long row of columns on the west side though and make it only 1 (or few) arches in that direction. (and not butt those round/square columns up together like he did, and of course not have such a huge iconostas, etc.) At any rate, he’s taking that as a starting point.
I’ll also include the contract-proposal he sent below. It’s changed a bit since we spoke about it before. At the time it was a 25K flat fee, but now it’s hourly at $200 per hour. He says he gets burned by flat fees because then parishes ask for time-consuming plan changes ad infinitum. That makes sense and I can appreciate having some incentive to make decisions and stick with them, but it also makes me a bit nervous since I don’t know how that hourly fee is going to extrapolate with reasonable design requests. And the other part of it that still gives me a little pause is the “intellectual property” section since it’s so vague and could really mean anything.
—————
Proposal:
Dear Father Joshua,
I have considered the work necessary to proceed with development of a design for your new church, and to provide presentation renderings. I am prepared to offer the following proposal for conceptual design services.
Scope of Services:
Fee Schedule:
Disclaimer:
Intellectual Property:
SIGNATURES
…
I think it’s not too crazy. Looks like it sets expectations for the project without being too heavy handed handed one way or another.
Just now seeing this post, but I agree. It seems the intellectual property section is mostly there to protect his “brand,” so people don’t go rogue with his designs and he ends up with his name attached to low quality results.
Do we have anyone with legal expertise who could take a look at it, though, and see if there are potential traps?
Did he say how much time on average he’s been booking on other projects? Might the $200/hr rate end up being a better deal than a flat $25k fee?
Christ is risen!
Some news:
1) Andrew says he’s ready to start working with us in the week of June 6th. I’m not sure about details on how this process will work yet, so stay tuned.
2) As we’ve talked about, it hasn’t seemed right to publish widely any kind of “official” building campaign yet, since we’re still lacking a concrete design, and it’s hard to get buy-in on vague future ideas. But I’d actually like to do something in that direction because some of us will have some opportunities in the very near future to get this in front of sympathetic eyes, so we need something short-term that’s less vague and more vision-setting. (?). Also there’s now some real hope of having a design in a couple months anyway, since we have a starting date from Andrew.
To that end I started a page on the website for this:
https://orthodoxchurchalbion.org/building
We talked about all of this a lot at parish council last weekend. I started it up, but most of the text there is from Katie, as she organized and rewrote it using her expertise in this area. Gabriel and Colm are working on some rough rendering ideas, I have Gabriel’s in there now. I dug around for good pictures from the parish for the various sections, but I’m not satisfied with the selection, so Brooke is looking through her collection for more. And for some things I had to just make reasonable guesses. Basically it’s supposed to show that this is a real thing with real work happening on it in order to inspire some confidence and generosity, even though the airplane hasn’t technically left the ground yet. It will be a page in progress for a long time, so jump in if you have helpful comments/corrections/etc.
I’m also going to try to come up with some sort of poster-board thing that corresponds to and points to that page, with pictures and basic info, etc., which we can put on the basement wall. I’d be glad for anyone to take it and make it better – this is for-sure not my area of expertise. It won’t have a thermometer though! 🙂 It seemed to us at the parish council that it’s not helpful to have such a thing until there’s something in it, not to mention we don’t really know how tall to make it either. <shrug>
Pictures from Napoleon stone quarry:
https://uofi.box.com/s/g9ol7o96r24yzhrjn11ior4zqlb8px8i
It was a rather interesting visit. I was thinking stone was going to be super expensive, but it wasn’t so bad. When I talked to Andrew about using stone, he was saying we should use the “real” stuff: horizontal stones of some depth to make a full-width stone wall. Not, in contrast, the stones cut thinner and placed on vertically as a veneer (such as at the monastery church).
Until today I figured that using whole stones would be the more expensive option since there’s so much more mass involved. Turns out, it’s the *cheaper* option, because much less labor is need in their creation. Woohoo!
Cool! Good news on the whole stone.
Peter and I are leaving at 10am tomorrow instead of 3pm.
Christ is risen!
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2022/04/what-christopher-alexander-saw
While we were on our trip, we stopped by Holy Ascension in Charleston NC, and attended Holy Trinity (Greek), the closest parish to where we were staying in St. Augustine. It was an interesting comparison. Holy Ascension was beautiful, but too narrow, and the pillars and nooks/alcoves created some traffic problems. Some of this was due to the nave just being too small for the number of parishioners, but the other aspect was that there were icons with candle stands on at least one side of each pillar, and there was not enough space for veneration without moving people moving out of the way. The size of the pillars was such that if you are tucked away in the corner, you could see most of the people in the nave, but not the altar.
In contrast, Holy Trinity was more of a square layout, and the nave was about as wide as it was deep. This made the nave more shallow, which also meant that more of the fellow parishioners were out of peripheral vision. It clicked for me that the long narrow basilica style nave we have now contributes to the visual noise significantly as you go further back towards the narthex because it pushes more activity into your field of view. Perhaps widening, and spreading people out, will bring everyone closer to the altar both physically, but also with the senses.
Anyway, previously I did not really like the square or wide layout, but after experiencing both (extremes), I think I prefer the wide layout because it spreads people out to the sides rather then forward.
Building design update:
Had a zoom call with Andrew Gould today. He thought he’d be ready for us in a couple weeks, but I suggested we wait until May since Lent is about to arrive. He is behind on other things, so he readily agreed to get the extra breathing space.
Otherwise we talked about plans, and I used our site plan and building design models to get the discussion going. Here are the latest of both:
site plan
https://app.modelo.io/share-token/1499215514079395840?source=copylink
building:
https://app.modelo.io/share-token/1499215744921305088?source=copylink
On the site plan, he didn’t have much to say, seemed to work for him at first glance.
On the building, lots of interesting stuff. Even though the model I’ve been working on is far from a completely thought-through building, it worked great to bring out talking points and give him a good idea of our direction.
Issues as I remember them:
Apparently, having apses over wide transepts, such as in our model, when you plan to put a full choir in them, is a bad idea. It leads to “acoustic lensing”. Appropriate only for smaller monastic settings. A barrel vault would be OK there, but only if it’s sufficiently high.
Most of his other smaller comments were about things that were not of any great significance to us, like the exact position of the iconostas, the balcony, and such things, so whatever.
But the main thing that was wrong about what I designed is that I put in a “basilica” style timber roof down the middle over the top of a “cruciform” style floor. And since I put a round dome on the top, as wide as the two columns in the arch underneath it, there wouldn’t be any normal way to hold it up, without doing some extra gymnastics.
If we want a normal round dome of a decent size (20’ish feet), then we need the four columns underneath it to have arches in both directions (north-south too, not just east-west like I had it), which are joined by pendentives to hold it all up.
So that’s one ideal: have four central masonry arches (roughly the size I already have them) in a square to hold up a nicely sized round dome, and then have timber-framed roof each direction from there. Keeps our floor like it is. Pricey though.
Or a smaller dome is OK, but that brings the columns more into the middle of the church, and ruins the floor-plan we have and makes for a very different kind of church.
Or we can leave the roof timber-framed basilica style with just east-west arches as I have it, but then the “dome” needs to be square. (is a “square dome” an oxymoron?). For example, see St. Anne’s in Oak Ridge from one of my previous posts. This would be much cheaper. But I’m not sure I can handle having a square dome? Andrew pointed out some precedent for that, but I’m not sure I buy it.
For outside material, he was excited about using real stone for the whole building, if we could manage to find the money for it. He was of course NOT a fan of stone that looks like a façade, but rather we talked about getting the thick stuff. So that would be masonry block inside, foam, then stone, 12-16” or so. Pretty massive.
Besides all of that he liked our floor-plan and said he could work with it. That’s the part I’d really given a lot of thought and planning to, so I’m glad for that. 🙂
Anyway, that’s all for now. Give this some thought over Lent and be ready to dive in starting somewhere around Bright Week!
Blessings!
Woohoo! Glad he finally got in touch, and glad our plan isn’t too off kilter.
I agree that a square dome isn’t really an option…
I tried putting some stone on the outside of the church, see attached pictures. I couldn’t get the stone “material” pattern to always align horizontally, even after much trying. So you can tell it’s stone, but it’s not always “stacked” the right way.
Anyway, making the entire thing out of stone seemed a bit much after I did it, so I tried it with leaving the porch in all stone, but wrapping it around the rest of the building about 6′ high with a ledge thing. Above that could be stucco.
I’m not sure how I feel about either design, but I think it will depend a lot on the color and size/scale of the stones, both of which are probably not easy or possible to represent in the model. Here’s an (admittedly much smaller than ours) all-stone church in Romania, which I think works well because of the larger stones.
I’m running into the limits of my ability with this software. In theory I ought to be able to take a pic of any material and make it repeat at the right size and in the right direction on a surface. But none of the instructions I’ve found for that have actually worked for me. So I’m using downloaded materials, but having the same trouble.
Check out how crazy it gets when I try to just swap the material onto different size surfaces (attached pics are “stone” and “brick”).
Unless I figure that out I’m not going to be able to render anything very accurate for any patterned surface. Nonetheless, to help us envision the building, I was hoping even a malproportioned stone surface might be more useful than none at all? I’m hoping Andrew will be able to fill in those gaps for us – I imagine saying things to him like, “this shape, but not that surface … these pillars, but not these windows, ” etc (:-}
I updated the church model after our walk-through last Sunday. It’s not much different than the last one. I fixed some things, and from some discussion we had on Sunday, I knocked the narthex wall back two feet and moved the narthex pillars forward, and added two more (now 4), so that they go across the back, and the balcony now sticks out over the columns.
It’s here: https://app.modelo.io/share-token/1489082443465494528?source=copylink
The layout in the hall seemed to have the desired effect of feeling small/cozy, even though it’s a larger space (45% larger).
So on the model the floor plan seems to be pretty good. But I haven’t given any thought yet to the placement or shape or size of the windows (feeling out of my depth there).
And also I haven’t done anything with the facade of the building, it’s just mono-colored right now. I’ll try to put some stones or brick or something on the outside of it at some point.
I also updated the site plan with this new building model.
https://app.modelo.io/share-token/1489088865586511872?source=copylink
Since the building I’ve been working on is smaller than the one I had in there before, things got moved around a little bit.
I like the changes, especially bringing the pillars into alignment. And it looks like you found a solution to the narthex arch/balcony railing issue you emailed me about. I personally quite like the way the big arches are arching over/into the balcony, and how those smaller arches that mark off the narthex align with the balcony and stairs. They create some lovely little nooks. But I am curious to hear an architect’s opinion on those portions; I have a hunch we could be doing something “improper” with the arches.
(It looks like the choir is on the wrong side?)
Here is the latest model, followed up on the points from our discussion on Jan 9th.
https://app.modelo.io/share-token/1483293351224115200?source=copylink
I’m laying out the floor plan of the building (used in the model) in the hall. It just fits if you leave out the altar. I’m setting up the walls like we did with the outside walk-through we did in December. Shall we have a communal walk-through to feel out the space? Let’s say Sunday after coffee hour, 1pm’ish. (There’s a baby shower at 3pm, but this should be really short so it should end with plenty of time to get to Hillsdale.)
I have setup the hall using tables stacked on each other and some plastic to mimic the floor plan, see picture. I labeled a bunch of things with signs to make it clear what is what. If you can’t make on Sunday with us, stop by any time and walk through it. We don’t have a rental there until 2/19, so we can leave it up a few weeks and play with it.
It might help to have a floor plan with you as well. I’m also attaching a picture of the floor plan, and I overlaid our current church on it in red lines, which makes it easier to compare and imagine the spaces I think.
I came across the concept of a daisy wheel today while doing some reading on timber framing and my mind is blown. This article has a good description of the different truss systems in timber framing and finishes off with a blurb on daisy wheel: https://www.timberstructures.net/services/timber-framing/ I then started reading about Laurie Smith and his articles here: https://historicbuildinggeometry.uk/downloads/
One of the relevant topics is the layout of a church using five circle and daisy wheel. Particularly in relation to aisle and nave.
This software is really amazing. So cool to look around. Regarding the church I can’t find within myself strong feelings regarding most of the elements you are playing with. Regarding the timber ceiling, which I personally find aesthetically pleasing, I worry about its effect on acoustics. My beginner level understanding of acoustics is that having the timber framing above the choir will be an impediment to the sound traveling where it needs to go to fill the church. I thought I read in one of the Orthodox arts journal articles that you want smooth surfaces from the choir/chanting alcoves up to the dome for best distribution of sound to avoid the need to use microphones. So I am personally plus 1 for how timber framing looks but minus 5 for using it in a way that hurts the acoustics and/or leads to needing microphones. I went to find the article I read to include the link below and see that it was written by Andrew so I assume he will keep us from using timber framing in a way that ruins our acoustics so maybe most of this comment is irrelevant 🙂
https://orthodoxartsjournal.org/acoustical-considerations-in-orthodox-church-design/
Replying to Ben’s note on acoustics:
I think having acoustics that are good, so that we do not need amplification, is in the non-negotiable category. If we end up coming up with something that isn’t good for sound, I think we’d just have to keep changing it until it is.
The model I’m working with is Andrew’s, so I imagine he thought the acoustics were fine with the mix of timber-to-flat-walls in that space, configured as it was.
I just reread the article you linked to. I’m not sure but I’m thinking that, if I changed the acoustics much at all, I would think the changes improved it slightly, because I’ve made it less long-and-skinny and more side-to-side, and otherwise kept the height/dome/ceilings as they were. (see the section on “Acoustical Phenomena Related to Form”).
But we’ll find out for sure what he thinks once he starts our project. :->
Wasn’t there some mention some where of adding a coat of shellac to wood to make it more reflective of sound? Can’t remember if that was mentioned related to one of the Santa Rosa church plans or somewhere else.
Here’s an updated model of the site plan that you can walk around in:
https://app.modelo.io/share-token/1473829749698195456?source=copylink
I put in a few small changes we talked about last Sunday. (first row of parking dead ends, parking drop-off area, “echo” of the church door entrance on the arcade, impassible bushes to spaced out bushes, etc)
Following up on our discussion of the church itself, I mocked up a model here:
https://app.modelo.io/share-token/1473841530667679744?source=copylink
I took Andrew’s church from Oakridge, the one with all the timber framing, and moved walls and pillars around so that it more closely matched the floor plan of the one from Bob’s church in Louisiana (the one with the barrel vaults) – the two we were looking at on Sunday.
I knocked out both of the transepts further, and pushed the narthex/balcony up into the church nave, changing it from long-and-skinny to more cross-in-square, removing the row of columns.
I tried something different on each side. On the south side I widened the transept a bit, and used a single plastered thick column for under the arch/dome.
On the north side I left in one of his skinny columns, a left the transept with the original width.
You can walk around each side in the model to get a sense for each one. I also took a few pictures of the renderings and attached them.
I also added a balcony and a narthex underneath it, with a “soft transition” from the narthex to the nave. (not walls/doors, but rather columns and candle stands).
The only thing I’m playing with here is the layout/floorplan and how it interacts with the columns, arches, balcony, narthex, and timber ceiling. I’m NOT proposing many of the other elements in this model (brick windows, square dome, etc). :-)}
This is probably the last bit of work I’ll be able to do on this for a few weeks. Let’s meet at coffee hour on Sunday January the 9th to take another inventory of where we are.
Blessings.
Anastasia thought it would be good to add some people and some rugs to the model to give one a better sense of size and perspective. Photo attached.
(sadly the kinds of people models you can download for free are not always the ideal for inside a church. Oh well.)
Hey, visitors from the nearby Ewok village!
When you are maneuvering around the space via the website, if you hold down a “look left” or “look right” key you can then pan around in that mode with the mouse to get a look around like you are turning your head. Not holding down a key will make it so you are yanking the whole building around.
Here is a view from above to get an idea of proportions. I remember we had talked about having the two rooms on either side of the altar, for music and vestments. It is nice that this current layout reflects that. I like the soft transition. I am trying to imagine how it relates to the beginning of a baptism service.
Some thoughts on Exterior Aesthetic:
I keep saying how much I dislike the siding we’ve seen on some of the church designs we’ve looked at, but since we’re trying to make this a more productive discussion than “likes and dislikes,” I’d like to try to pick that apart a little.
I should probably clarify that I don’t think siding itself is always terrible–I don’t mind our current church, and I can certainly imagine churches designed in such a way that siding would be just fine. However, I think at best siding becomes ‘invisible’–I don’t notice or think about it, but I wouldn’t ever look at siding and note how beautiful it is. Probably for a discussion about materials, I would say that siding ranges from ugly-invisible, stucco produces a nice overall aesthetic that is still mostly invisible as a material, and brick or stone actually make me think ‘beautiful.’ (Wood spans the whole spectrum based on a lot of other factors.) If we’re focusing on making a beautiful building, siding just doesn’t have much potential, and I think will *require* extra work to even keep it invisible. I know stone is expensive and probably not an option for us, but it automatically gets you closer to the ‘beautiful’ level without as much work.
In general, I think I object to the farmhouse or barn aesthetic much more than the siding, even though siding can contribute heavily to those impressions. We’ve thought a lot about the effort Andrew and Bob both like to put into making their churches match (or feel appropriate to) their surroundings, but even though barns probably *are* the primary architecture in rural Michigan, I don’t think it’s appropriate to make a church to match that. Churches are meant to be set apart a little, to be more imposing, less like our daily lives. All the old churches around here I can think of look…like churches? They’re congruent to their surroundings but clearly are following some sort of church patterning rather than house/store/anything else patterning. It seems important to know in my gut that it’s a church building, and not somehow feel like it’s a really big house.
The forces we’re trying to balance here are probably something like “approachable/culturally appropriate” and “setting apart/beautifying the sacred.” As long as we’re aware that we need a middle ground, I don’t think it would be that difficult to achieve. I think we shy away from too imposing anyway, but maybe we could think about having that farmhouse porch but no siding, or using siding but designing the porch differently? The ways that we’ve been talking about using wood all seem like good ways to find a middle ground as well. Does anyone else have strong feelings about this topic either way?
Speaking of exteriors, the stone quarry place in Napoleon has a website with all sorts of pictures: http://napoleonstone.com/gallery
Recently I was in Hudson, which is in the same area, which had several churches built out of stone, which all looked more or less like the picture I’ve attached of the Methodist church there.
I love those buildings, they’re the kind I always notice on a drive. There are a lot of great uses of stone in that gallery–have we talked about using stone from them as an option for us, or are we just using them for inspiration?
> have we talked about using stone from them as an option for us,
> or are we just using them for inspiration?
If we go with stone, they are a likely choice of supplier since they are so nearby and have such a large variety.
Looking up pictures of stone and timber-framing together is a fun exercise!
Eg:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/187603140712407209/
As far as exterior, here is a random church I just found via Russian-mom-Instagram land, which I found notable because it seems attainable for us, structurally, and not terribly Russian (once you remove the onion domes, which I think could be easily done here). I particularly like the framing on the windows and the brick/stone fence with gate.
Lots of interesting detail in that picture. It’s a stone wall, but with brick “fence posts” ? Agreed, the arched gate is pretty cool. Stucco’d building with nice detailing around the windows, and with white pillars? I can’t quite make out what’s going on with that.
Thinking about stucco exterior, vs stone/brick, I’m attaching an interesting picture I bumped into. It’s got a sample of 5-6 different kinds of exteriors, all in the same picture. Some of them are pretty cool.
Also we can combine exteriors if we wanted to, I’ve seen many churches that are stone/brick/whatever up about 4 feet, and then stucco above that, which seems to work.
I came across this yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d50xTNITvDg
His basic premise is that building with brick can be comparable pricewise to stick built and that it can be done in a way that is energy efficient and sustainable. Elevator pitch “Hope for Architecture: A structural masonry revival fusing the best of the old with the best of the new to create a profoundly lasting and beautiful built environment.”
> I came across this yesterday:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d50xTNITvDg
> His basic premise is that build …
This was an interesting video, he’s definitely speaking the same language we are. Those were the most beautiful horse stables I’ve ever seen for sure! I liked how bring and wood come together in his designs.
Oh wow, lots of cool stuff going on there.
Looks like I’m not having much luck getting an online discussion of the site plan going, so let’s try it in person. Let’s meet this Sunday (the 19th) at coffee hour.
That’s good with me. It’s been a crazy few weeks, and it takes me a lot more energy for me to read through and post something cogent here than to have a discussion in person.
Here’s a rough draft of a site plan. For these renderings I used the church model from Andrew’s church in Greenville SC (St John of the Ladder), I cut-and-pasted that church into our site.
I took some screen shots and attached them.
But the cool thing is that there’s an online model viewer, so you can walk all around the site virtually using your browser, you don’t need to download any software. Just go here:
https://app.modelo.io/share-token/1470295475117588480?source=copylink
I noticed that Chrome works better than Safari, but they both work.
If you click on the question mark, it will tell which how to navigate.
As you can see, the rough idea is forming, but there are several spots where I had to kind of guess what we might want. I wasn’t sure how to made the transition spaces and the boundaries between them (fence, hedge, grass, gate, etc?) So lots of detail still needs to get worked out.
Maybe we could play with this model over a zoom call?
I’d like to nail the rough relation of things down a bit so that we can move onto the church building itself.
Or stone instead of wood? Picture attached.
These are great! Will be a good discussion point for our next meeting.
Parked cars capacity will be a good talking point too.
A note to consider.
Do we know her many parked cars we have on average during the school year, and also for extra large events like weddings and Pascha?
> Do we know her many parked cars we have on average
> during the school year, and also for extra large events
> like weddings and Pascha?
I probably have the least accurate guess of anyone, since I’m usually the first one there and last to leave. Maybe a full Sunday is around 50?
For notes:
45 cars full average Sunday
75 cars Pascha/weddings
Just a thought. We talked about having a campground style parking arrangement. This would be beautiful, but it wouldn’t keep kids from playing away from cars and lot traffic. Consider the great camping past time of kids riding bikes and scooters in the circuit. Maybe it’s not a problem, but seems like something to keep in mind if that situation is to be avoided. I’m sure there’s a solution to be thought up.
Let’s make this post be a thread where we post pictures from our “On Sight/Site” investigation.
This looks a little bit like a porch off of the new hall.
Some lofi sketching.
High view overlooking the narthex and main sanctuary from the door.
Two Courtyards with an arcade:
So sorry to miss this. Looks like it was great fun.
It was. Wish you were there.
My photos aren’t as good as Peter’s but here they are.
A loose sketch on flow. Parking, driving, walking. Just playing with ideas
Great drawing! Yes, that is the sort of thing we’re envisioning. I think you’re officially in charge of this now!
Of course, for the final drawing, we’ll have to take into the account where the trees actually are, and put the little lots in between and around them. So I think the final product will end up being more random than the nice symmetric one you’ve drawn. If you want to figure that out, it should be possible. Peter and I walked that whole area and marked off some trees by painting and orange “O” on them, figuring all the rest would come down. The trees marked that way are larger canopy-forming trees roughly equidistant from each other. So if you paced off the location of all those trees and made a map of them, then you could redraw the parking to fit within them, and then we’d be pretty close to the final product.
About the kids playing near cars problem: making the lot this way wasn’t primarily meant to address that issue. It was more about avoiding a sea of cars on hot black asphalt, and managing the integration of the less pleasant necessity of cars/driving with the more pleasant trees, shade, nature, etc., and managing the pedestrian-to-parking psychological transition as best we can.
But as for the problem you raised, kids riding around the circuit, I’m not sure if that’s a bug or a feature? 🙂 In fact, I can envision kids riding a path around the perimeter of the whole property some day. But yeah, as far as keeping little kids away from that area, we’ll want to keep in mind ways that can we naturally funnel kids toward the kid areas and away from the car areas.
Haha, a feature for sure! Very good points and insights.