Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Towards a New Sacred : Past, Present and Future Forms of Non-denominational Protestant Architecture Stewart, Alexandra Adair 2019-04-26

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
42591-Stewart_Alexandra_ARCH_549_Towards_new_sacred_2019.pdf [ 216.69MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 42591-1.0378598.json
JSON-LD: 42591-1.0378598-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 42591-1.0378598-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 42591-1.0378598-rdf.json
Turtle: 42591-1.0378598-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 42591-1.0378598-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 42591-1.0378598-source.json
Full Text
42591-1.0378598-fulltext.txt
Citation
42591-1.0378598.ris

Full Text

Towards a ew Sacred: Past, Present and Future Forms of Non-denominational Protestant Architecture Alexandra Adair Stewart B.F.A., The University of Montana, 2016 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Architecture in The Faculty of Applied Science The University of British Columbia School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture Committee members Chris Macdonald, Sara Stevens, Leslie Van Duzer and Lynne ,,Verker © Alexandra Adair Stewart, April 2019 Abstract This project begins with an examination of  the architecture of  large, non-denominational Protestant churches, often referred to as megachurches. This yielded an understanding of  these religious institutions and how they function architecturally, programmatically, phenomenologically as well as how they fit into larger traditions in the history of  Protestant architecture. Understanding these functions led to critiques of  the megachurch in regards to siting, vehicle dependence, generic building material, construction and aesthetic qualities, an insular presence within larger contexts and massive, often under-utilized spaces. These critiques and observations formed design provocations for the design component of  the project. The work conducted in part one of  the project identified three sites as potential candidates for the project, while in the second half  of  the project, one site, the Sperling Annex Rectifier station, was chosen as the single location. The design proposal focuses on the context of  Vancouver and engages the particular climates for religious institutions and urban social engagement in the city. The design proposal is for a small, non-denomi-national Protestant church with a modest program that includes a 150-seat sanctuary, Sunday school/classroom spaces, administrative and church office space, childcare facilities, a cafe, and flexible social and public space. A chosen site adjacent to the Arbutus greenway drives a design focused on social gathering and community building around an important future transit route and social space in Vancouver’s urban fabric.  Ideas of  gathering and community building inform the large design moves of  the church, which seeks to propose an alternative to the megachurch typology studied previously and suggests instead a small church designed around principles of  site specificity, community engagement, cohesion with surrounding context, flexible building use and the reuse and adaptation of  a historical, heritage building for an architecturally unique and expressive house of  worship. These design moves included a gathered worship space, an entry sequence and circulation patterns within the building that form a “social concourse” en route to worship space and other functional spaces within the building and outdoor areas that connect to the greenway and create inviting, public space. With such a proposed design and strategies for implementing it, the project proposes that the critiques iden-tified in early precedent studies may be addressed in ways that incorporate new strategies to create expressive and original sacred space while still in keeping with larger trends and shifts in traditions of  Protestant architecture. iiTable of  ContentsAbstract........................................................................................................................................................iiList of  Figures..............................................................................................................................................ivAcknowledgment........................................................................................................................................viiStatement of  Thesis......................................................................................................................................1GP I Field of  Inquiry : Position, Context and Area of  Study.......................................................................2GP I Analysis of  Potential Sites....................................................................................................................4Projected Approach and Working Methodology........................................................................................10Architectural Issues and Precedents...........................................................................................................12Theoretical Background.............................................................................................................................23GP II Analysis of  Chosen Site...................................................................................................................28Program and Organization........................................................................................................................30Design Resolution......................................................................................................................................32Notes...........................................................................................................................................................55Works Cited................................................................................................................................................61Bibliography...............................................................................................................................................64 iiiList of  FiguresFigure 1. Murrin Substation North Elevation..............................................................................................4Figure 2. Murrin Substation site at 721 Main Street...................................................................................4Figure 3. Murrin Substation in City of  Vancouver Context........................................................................5Figure 4. Dal Grauer Substation Northwest Elevation................................................................................6Figure 5. Dal Grauer Substation site at 944 Burrard Street........................................................................6Figure 6. Dal Grauer Substation in City of  Vancouver Context.................................................................7Figure 7. Sperling Substation Annex Northeast Elevation...........................................................................8Figure 8. Sperling Substation site at 4003 Maple Street..............................................................................8Figure 9. Sperling Substation in City of  Vancouver Context......................................................................9Figure 10. Comparison of  Approximate Square Footage of  Megachurch Precedents..............................12Figure 11. Number of  Megachurches Per County.....................................................................................13Figure 12. Megachurch Attendees as Percent of  County Population........................................................13Figure 13. Distances of  Six Megachurches from Respective City Centers................................................14Figure 14. Circulation and Access of  Selected Megachurch Precedents...................................................15Figure 15. Building Size vs. Weekly Attendance........................................................................................16Figure 16. Megachurch Site Composition.................................................................................................17Figure 17. Section view of  Lakewood Church, highlighting audio-visual equipment...............................17Figure 18. Perspective Drawing Showing Sight lines and Orientation in a Megachurch Sanctuary.........18Figure 19. Lakewood Aerial View..............................................................................................................19Figure 20. Lakewood Church Exterior.......................................................................................................19Figure 21. Lakewood Church Interior........................................................................................................19Figure 22. Gateway Aerial View.................................................................................................................20Figure 23. Gateway Church Exterior.........................................................................................................20Figure 24. Gateway Church Interior......................................................................................................................20   ivList of  Figures, ContinuedFigure 24. Gateway Church Interior ........................................................................................................20Figure 25. Willow Creek Aerial View.........................................................................................................21Figure 26. Willow Creek Community Church Exterior..............................................................................21Figure 27. Willow Creek Community Church Interior..............................................................................21Figure 28. North Point Aerial View............................................................................................................22Figure 29. North Point Community Church Exterior................................................................................22Figure 30. North Point Interior...................................................................................................................22Figure 31. Proposed Routes of  Vancouver’s Future Streetcar System.......................................................32Figure 32. Site Context Plan......................................................................................................................33Figure 33. Proposed Arbutus Greenway Development. Phase 1: Expansion and Upgrades.....................34Figure 34. Proposed Arbutus Greenway Development. Phase 2: Streetcar System...................................34Figure 35.Existing Site Plan.......................................................................................................................35Figure 36.Existing Building Elevation, Northeast Facade..........................................................................36Figure 37. Existing Building Elevation, Southeast Facade.........................................................................37Figure 38. Existing Building Elevation, Southwest Facade........................................................................38Figure 39. Existing Building Elevation, Northwest Facade........................................................................39Figure 40. Design Strategy Diagrams.........................................................................................................40Figure 41. Proposed Site Plan....................................................................................................................41Figure 42. Level 1 Floor Plan.....................................................................................................................42Figure 43. Level 2 Floor Plan.....................................................................................................................43Figure 44. Level 3 Floor Plan.....................................................................................................................44Figure 45. Proposed building longitudinal section.....................................................................................45Figure 46. Proposed building cross section.................................................................................................45 vList of  Figures, ContinuedFigure 47. Proposed Building Elevation, Northeast Facade.......................................................................46Figure 48. Proposed Building Elevation, Southeast Facade.......................................................................47Figure 49. Proposed Building Elevation, Southwest Facade......................................................................48Figure 50. Proposed Building Elevation, Northwest Facade.......................................................................49Figure 51.Perspective view from near Arbutus path looking East.............................................................50Figure 52. Entry route to worship space.....................................................................................................51Figure 53. Perspective from second floor cafe............................................................................................52Figure 54. Perspective view looking southwest from worship space...........................................................53Figure 55. Perspective view of  stage and original Sperling elements in worship space ............................54 viAcknowledgmentI would like to sincerely thank my chairs and committee members for their generous help and guidance throughout this project. Thank you to Leslie Van Duzer for her guidance in the early stages of  the project, to Chris Macdonald and Lynne Werker for their extremely helpful feedback and assistance and to Sara Stevens for her role as my chair and mentor. viiStatement of  Thesis I propose in this project to challenge the typological architectural features I have identified in American megachurches, such as colossal scale, generic architectural features, ex-urban location, dependence on vehicular transportation, growth- and cost-oriented construction and insular community presence.6,7,8 Instead of  and in reaction to these qualities, in the first part of  the project, I identified three potential sites for hosting a design project for a church using these critiques of  the megachurch as provo-cations. In the second part of  the project, I focus on one site exclusively and am proposing the redesigned BC Hydro Sperling Annex Rectifier station as an alternative to the megachurch type, prioritizing in its design a small community based presence, accessible and well integrated into the urban fabric of  Vancouver via direct engagement with the Arbutus greenway. The design also aims to exhibit specific and highly refined architecture taking specificity and uniqueness from the historical character of  the existing building and showing careful attention to material and the aesthetic character of  the created space. This project will therefore address social issues of  community engagement, functional use, utility and program while engaging with traditions in Protestant architecture and qualities of  sacred spaces. It will also deal with aesthetic considerations such the qualities of  materiality, architectural symbol and form, and the historical character of  the buildings.    1GP I Field of  Inquiry: Position, Context and Area of  Study One of  these within the proposed field of  inquiry is concerned with urbanism and community engagement. I propose to arrange program and building use to facilitate multiple building uses as well as outreach to a large Vancouver user group and thus justify the need for additional worship facilities despite declining religious attendance numbers.9  The location of  the projects in Chinatown, downtown and on the Arbutus corridor, respectively, are in keeping with principles of  a centralized urbanity, moving in from the suburbs and exurban sites and thus increasingly facilitating social and community engagement according to principles of  New Urbanism.10,11  Another topic within the field of  inquiry concerns the idea of  program and event space. My investigation takes inspiration from the work of  Bernard Tschumi and his idea that “architecture—its social relevance and formal invention—cannot be dissociated from the events that ‘happen’ in it.”12 With this in mind, I propose to at once create worship spaces that have a functional approach to programmat-ic needs while also allowing flexibility and freedom that facilitate diverse uses in keeping with goals for community engagement and Tschumi’s ideas about the architecture of  events.  The subject of  materiality will also be explored during the course of  this project. This project is going to aim for a high degree of  specificity in the application of  material, both as a response to the existing historical buildings and also as a means to influence aesthetic experience. Taking inspiration from Peter Zumthor, material will be used as a mediator between the existing elements and the new, comprehensive whole, hopefully with a level of  sensitivity that unifies new and old material.13  Connected to this idea of  materiality is the topic of  historicism in this project. The use of  exist-ing buildings with marked historical stylistic influences—modern for the Dal Grauer, Art Deco for the Murrin and a sense of  Beaux Arts for the Sperling substation—introduces the challenge of  creating a comprehensive aesthetic product when working with the vestiges of  historical styles and adding contem-porary construction over top. Taking inspiration from the likes of  Rafael Moneo and Sigfried Giedion in terms of  the connection between time and architecture and architecture serving    2 as an instrument of  mediation between past and present, I propose that the evidence of  the historical styles and the age of  the building itself  will be an integral feature of  the final design product.14,15 Not only will the historical features influence the overall aesthetic experience in a complex way, the goal of  producing a sensitive and specific treatment of  and additions to existing building features will drive design decisions. The project as a whole will thus be informed by the idea that the history of  the buildings is a potent influence on any experience in the newly designed whole.16 Another topic with the field of  inquiry is the use of  iconography, symbol and sign. Informed by Robert Venturi and Denise Scott Brown’s Learning From Las Vegas, this investigation has involved consider-ing the significance of  iconography, imagery and symbol in ecclesiastical buildings.17 Based on research into the Protestant Modernist architectural movement in mid-century America, with notable architects such as the Saarinens, Pietro Belluschi, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, Richard Neutra, Mies van der Rohe and Frank Lloyd Wright, a general move away from iconography in Protestant ecclesiastical architecture was marked at this time and continued to influence Protestant and non-denominational architecture subsequently.18  I propose in my project to operate with similar ideology in relation to iconography in order to be in keeping with the architectural tradition still operative in contemporary times. I propose to move away from the relation of  architectural symbol to liturgy towards a greater attention to such elements as expressive material use and proximity to nature and other strategies that have desirable experiential effects.    3GP I Analysis of  Potential SitesMurrin SubstationFigure 1. Murrin Substation North Elevation, Scale 1/32”=1’0”120 FEETNFigure 2. Murrin Substation site at 721 Main Street (building footprint in red) from Google Earth721 Main Street    4NNFigure 3. Murrin Substation in City of  Vancouver Context, scale 1”=1,250’ from Google Earth The Murrin Substation was built between 1945 and 1947.19  It was designed and constructed by the Vancouver architectural firm McCartner and Nairne, who also designed other iconic Vancouver buildings such as the Post Office, the Marine Building and other BC Electric substations.20 The Murrin substation was built by what was then the BC Electric Company, which was responsible for Vancouver’s electrical and transportation operations. It was named after then-President of the company, W.G. Murrin.21  BC Hydro, which currently operates the substation, is planning to replace this and other substa-tions within the next few decades in order “to prevent future brownouts and handle expected growth in electricity consumption.”22 BC Hydro expects a “75% increase in energy demand over the next 30 years”23 and are working to come to agreement with the city about locations for new stations, though expensive land costs have made finding new sites downtown challenging.24     5Dal Grauer SubstationD A L   G R A U E R S U B S T A T I O NFigure 4. Dal Grauer Substation Northwest Elevation, Scale 1/64”=1’0”NFigure 5. Dal Grauer Substation site at 944 Burrard Street (building footprint in red) from Google Earth944 Burrard Street    6NFigure 6. Dal Grauer Substation in City of  Vancouver Context, scale 1”=1,250’ from Google Earth  The Dal Grauer substation was completed in 1954, a joint design effort between architect Ned Pratt and artist B. C. Binning.25 BC Hydro commissioned the building under then-President Edward Albert “Dal” Grauer, “to bridge functional design with public art.”26 The substation was intended to “serve as a three-dimensional canvas said to resemble a Piet Mondrian or Des Stijl painting.”27  Originally the entire street-fronting facade on Burrard featured a glass and steel curtain wall that “exposed electrical machinery, staircases, and other functional elements set against a backdrop of bright primary colors.”28  Lit at night, the building glowed as a celebration of electrical consumption, art and technology.29    Unfortunately in 1977, a transformer explosion shattered parts of the glass facade and these were replaced with Plexiglas, which aged poorly and became opaque.30 The substation has been granted a class “A” designation on the City of Vancouver Heritage Register and many have advocated for restoration efforts to return the building to its original splendor. These have been put off by the city due to the high projected costs of restoration efforts.31     7Sperling Substation Annex4003 Maple StreetFigure 7. Sperling Substation Annex Northeast Elevation, Scale 1/32”=1’0”Figure 8. Sperling Substation site at 4003 Maple Street (building footprint in red) from Google EarthN    8NFigure 9. Sperling Substation in City of  Vancouver Context, scale 1”=1,250’ from Google Earth The Sperling Substation Annex, formerly the Point Grey Substation, was constructed between 1912 and 1918. It was designed by Robert Lyon who worked for the BC Electric Railway from 1911-1918.32  The substation has been given a class “C” designation on the City of Vancouver Heritage Register and is no longer in operation.33   9GP I Projected Approach and Working Methodology1. Analysis I intend to continue the process of obtaining plans, sections and other architectural draw-ings from the city and building owners for the three existing buildings I am working with. So far, this has required a process of obtaining permission from property owners before plans can be released, which has extended the process into an ongoing one. I am simultaneously working to request access to the interiors of the buildings. With this granted, I will be able to document both the interior and exterior spaces thoroughly through photography and drawings. With such doc-umentation, I will then be able to analyze the buildings materially, programmatically, structurally and experientially in order to fully understand what I will be working with in the design process. 2. Design Techniques I propose to use a design process for the three buildings that involves many iterations and design work at different scales. I would like to incorporate urban-scale design considerations that ensures a cohesive position of the building within the urban fabric of Vancouver and a solid relation of program and building use to community engagement. This part of the design process will then take into consideration subjects such as the buildings’ responses to public and private transportation, walkability, general relation of program to building form, street presence and visibility from different perspectives within the city and architectural organization for secondary uses and outreach programs. It will also take into account other worship spaces in close proximity and differentiate the design of the buildings accordingly. Design work at an architectural scale will accompany this urban-scale work, and I will deal with standard concerns of program,    10structure, material, circulation and movement and technical needs of the specific program elements, such as acoustic and lighting specifications. This process will also involve the renovation of existing mechanical spaces currently housing electrical equipment and other remnants of the buildings’ BC hydro substation program.  I would also like to incorporate ate design work at a highly detailed scale that focuses on close analysis of moments, materials and experiential phenomena that can be then related to programmatic use of the buildings and to an overall richness of experience that I will be trying to create, antithetical to the generic architecture and spatial experience I have identified in the megachurch precedents I’ve been studying this semester.  3. Media I propose to use a variety of different media to represent different aspects of this project. My primary medium will be drawings with detail and material models also playing important roles. Describing my project at an urban and social scale, the drawings I produce will respond to those I have already completed in my precedent studies, so as to create the basis for a clear comparison between my design project and the elements of the precedent studies it responds to. These drawings will include maps and diagrams describing site location and urban context, demographics and use, transportation, program and building and site composition, as they relate to outside circulation and exchange with the urban environment. At an architectural and detail level, descriptive, expressive drawings will be my primary form of representation. These will be undertaken with the goal of clearly describing material qualities, atmospheric presence and overall spatial experience of the building, in addition to the architecture itself. Renderings and illustrated drawings will thus also form an important component of the project. I would also like to incorporate detail models and material studies to further describe the material conditions of the project, possibly including some 1:1 or large scale physical representations of compelling moments within the project.  111,300,000 FTYANKEE STADIUM606,000 FTLAKEWOOD CHURCH350,000 FTWILLOW CREEK COMMUNITY CHURCH226,300 FTNORTH POINT COMMUNITY CHURCH178,000  FTWALMART SUPERCENTER57,600 FTFOOTBALL FIELD222222Figure 10. Comparison of  Approximate Square Footage of  Megachurch Precedents and Other Large Buildings from Google Earth Part I of  my graduation project began by researching the phenomenon of  megachurches in America. I focused my investigation on their history and development in the hopes of  understanding them architecturally and phenomenologically. Going forward, for the second part of  the graduation project, I propose to use the architectural features I’ve identified in these investigations as provocations to design alternative worship spaces that differ experientially, aesthetically, spatially and architecturally from the characteristics I’ve identified in my studies and outlined below through diagram and drawing.Architectural Issues and Precedent Study  120 10+5% +2 - 5%<2%                             Figure 11. Number of  Megachurches Per County34 Figure 12. Megachurch Attendees as Percent of  County Population35   13CHRIST COMMUNITY45 MILESCHICAGOLAKEWOOD9 MILES HOUSTON 17 MILES  FORT WORTH 22 MILES DALLAS WILLOW CREEK34 MILES CHICAGONORTH POINT26 MILES ATLANTAOVERLAKE16 MILES  SEATTLEGATEWAYFigure 13. Distances of  6 Megachurches from Respective City Centers from Google Earth The widely accepted definition of  megachurch and the one I used in my investigation is based on weekly attendance numbers greater than 2,000 individuals.36,37,38 Megachurches are a largely Protestant phenomenon though many are non-denominational and may have only loose doctrinal associations.39 Although megachurches can be found worldwide, in the United States, where I focused my investigation, they are concentrated geographically in the sunbelt states, particularly in California, Texas, Florida and Georgia.40, 41  Megachurches tend to be located on the outskirts of  large cities and densely populated areas, making them an “ex-urban” phenomenon.42 They also tend to be located on major freeways and interstates and rely heavily on vehicle transport for accessibility.43 Accordingly, vast parking lots are a necessity and dominate the site composition of  most of  the precedents I’ve analyzed.  14NORTH POINT COMMUNITY CHURCHGATEWAY CHURCH OVERLAKE CHRISTIAN CHURCHFigure 14. Circulation and Access of  Selected Megachurch Precedents from Google Earth My analysis of  various megachurch precedents varying in size, denominational affiliation and geographical location has allowed me to compare different architectural attributes among the different cases. One common feature among megachurches I’ve found in my analysis is architecture based around objectives of  growth.44 With many of  the megachurches a “seeker-friendly” approach determines liturgical style and most aspects of  church function and organization.45 With this objective, the church maintains itself  by constantly seeking out and attracting new members. This seeker-friendly and growth-oriented approach can also be understood to drive the architectural form of  the mega-church.46 The sanctuaries or worship spaces and the large number of  seats in them are major selling points in the megachurch’s appeal and building plans seem to privilege these worship spaces and focus full building circulation around them.47 15LAKEWOOD GATEWAY WILLOW CREEK OVERLAKE Figure 15. Building Size vs. Weekly Attendance48 Building sizes swell also to accommodate the various amenities and program elements intended to attract members, which might include commercial elements such as bookstores, cafes, food courts, children’s facilities such as daycare, preschool and K-12, seminary programs and bible colleges, television and audio recording studios, rentable event and concert space and a whole range of  recreational gym and sports facilities for member use.49 Such attractions and amenities, in turn serve to attract new members and enhance the overall sense of  “the mega” and make some megachurches reminiscent of  enclaves and tight-knit, self-sufficient communities.50,51  166%29%CHRIST COMMUNITY CHURCHBUILDINGPARKING20 ACRES80 ACRES75 ACRESLAKEWOOD CHURCHGATEWAY CHURCHWILLOW CREEK COMMUNITY CHURCHNORTH POINT COMMUNITY CHURCHOVERLAKE CHRISTIAN CHURCHLANDSCAPE6%26%42%11% 51%49%69%14% 14%45%Figure 16. Megachurch Site Composition from Google EarthThe megachurch also uses its ex-urban siting to purchase large plots of  cheap land in sparsely populated areas both to house its existing large building sites, accommodate the large amounts of  parking space needed due to the dependence on car transport for most of  the membership and often also to allow for further expansion and addition to the built church in the future.52Figure 17. Section view of  Lakewood Church, highlighting audio-visual equipment53  17 These considerations of  increasing attendance numbers, housing large numbers of  program ele-ments and maximizing built space per dollar value seem to be more determinative of  architectural form than any overt architectural design concept, thus often producing generic and incidental architectural features. In my own design project, I hope to use these characteristics as provocations, specifically using a strategy that reuses unique historical architecture in contrast to building new and generic buildings, that devotes close attention and detail to design decisions and individual moments within the architecture, housing church program in relatively small and idiosyncratic spaces in contrast to the generic, cheap and massive architecture of  the megachurch and that sites the designed worship spaces within the city to allow for use of  public transportation and community engagement, in contrast to the vehicle dependent, ex-urban siting of  the megachurch precedents. Figure 18. Perspective Drawing Showing Sight lines and Orientation in a Megachurch Sanctuary  18Lakewood Church, Houston, TX        Figure 20. Lakewood Church Exterior54   Figure 21. Lakewood Church Interior55Figure 19. Lakewood Aerial View from Google earth  19Gateway Church, Southlake, TX Figure 24. Gateway Church Interior57  Figure 23. Gateway Church Exterior56Figure 22. Gateway Aerial View from Google earth  20Willow Creek Community Church, South Barrington, IL   Figure 27. Willow Creek Community Church Interior59     Figure 26. Willow Creek Community Church Exterior58Figure 25. Willow Creek Aerial View from Google earth  21North Point Community Church, Alpharetta, GA    Figure 30. North Point Interior61   Figure 29. North Point Community Church Exterior60   Figure 28. North Point Aerial View from Google earth   22Theoretical Background This project began by investigating large, Protestant, non-denominational churches—often referred to as megachurches—and how they function in different ways—socially, phenomenologically, and architecturally. One of the things I found most interesting about these was the idea of ecclesiastical architecture that seeks to blend in with everyday life and its secular surroundings, embracing “an architecture analogous to—shopping malls, corporate centers, sports arenas—the American everyday.”62,63 In contrast to centuries of architectural traditions for churches, such institutions don’t seek to mark itself out as sacred space.64 Instead, traditional markers of churches architecturally are elided in favor of generic building forms that give little or no indication of the religious functions housed within, seeking to “make an impressions on non-churched, secular Americans.”65  Such trends in contemporary Protestant architecture grew out of a reform movement, specifically protestant and architectural, that occurred mid-century.66 In the aftermath of WWII, a boom of church building occurred and architects Edward Sovik and Harold Wagoner led a movement keen to improve upon the past 100 years of religious architecture.67 Organizations such as National Council of Churches, and the Church Architectural Guild of America spearheaded such efforts.68 The motivations for these reforms included the belief in a “general mediocrity” of American Protestant church architecture of the preceding century and “a naive ‘grass-roots’ approach.”69  These reformers also dismissed imitative church building—American copies of European Gothic and other historical church styles—in favor of a uniquely “modern, recognizably Protestant architecture,” specifically adapted to contemporary times and needs.70  Such imitative-historical styles for Protestant churches are in keeping with a longer history of Protestantism’s tenuous connection to material and visual arts, architecture included.71 Theologian Paul Tillich attributes this to the “predominance of the “ear” over and against the “eye” in Protestant thought, result[ing] in Protestantism creating great music and great poetry, but not great architecture, painting and sculpture.”72  23 He credits the stripping of Catholic churches of symbol, ornaments and religious art at the Reformation, effectively adapting them to Protestant requirements but leaving them with buildings originally catering to Catholic uses, for a lack of a distinctive Protestant style for much of the movement’s history.73 Core tenets of Protestantism itself prohibit “objects of veneration,” significantly limiting the presence of art, statues and sculpture and ornament found within the Protestant church and prioritizing instead a “sacred emptiness” that is in keeping also with the focus on an individual’s relationship with deity and the Word in contrast to the Catholic focus on sacrament.74 Under these conditions, a lack of a distinctly Protestant and contemporary style for church building seems a natural outcome, with the reliance on imitative-his-torical styles a holdover from previous centuries. However, Mid-century Protestant architectural reformers and theologians found modern archi-tecture well-suited to their needs and ideologies, particularly such qualities as “the honest use of materials and construction techniques, its adaptability to new shapes and forms, its freedom from ornamentation and symbolic content, its simplicity and unpretentiousness and often, the economy of building in modern styles, compared to highly ornamented and often more complex traditional styles.” They also subscribed to ideas of function following form and a church that physically expresses “the beliefs and practices of the people who worship therein.”75 Mid-century architects whose church designs embodied some of these principles include Pietro Belluschi, Mies van der Rohe, Richard Neutra, Philip Johnson, Frank Lloyd Wright, Skidmore Owings and Merrill and the Saarinens.76 One of the most important ways that a church could follow these principles of responding to the congregation’s needs, they proposed, was by taking on the form of a “gathered church” or a “structure that facilitated the intimate spiritual fellowship and full congregational participation.”77 This could be facil-itated in a number of ways, and notable among them is the spatial organization of the church’s worship space. Gathered arrangements includes ones where “seating is often wrapped around three sides of the interior, heightening a sense of group identity” and where “the assembly itself may thus become the main focus of attention.”78      24The communal nature of such objectives also requires the providing plenty of social space, Such a church is usually built with ample space for social mingling at the entry; the importance of  gathering people together is highlighted by this provision of social space. More often than in  other designs, the modern communal church is built for a congregation that is not already formed   as a community in everyday life and that thus needs to be constituted as a social community en    route to the place where it becomes a worshiping community.79 Such design guidelines are in keeping with central tenets of Protestantism, particularly those which em-phasize “the predominance of the Word over the sacrament and the predominance of the congregation over the liturgical leaders or leader.”80With these principles in mind, a social, gathered church provides a natural fulfillment of the many core ideas of the faith.  The study of the history and development of Protestant architecture led also to the study of overall trends in religious practices and notable liturgical shifts that often lie behind the architectural moves. While such changes represent large and enormously complex phenomena, such contemporary truths such as the separation of church and state, decreasing religious attendance numbers in North America, reforms and changes in church structure, organization and liturgical approach reflect what sociologist Thomas Luckmann terms “invisible religion” which describes the shift away from distinct denomina-tions to more diffuse forms of religion and to private, syncretic forms of belief.”81 Luckmann also ascribes continued relevance to the social opportunities the church offers members and claims that historically too “that traditional church religion came to depend more and more upon social groups and state that are, in a sense, survivals of a past social order within modern society.”82 Under these conditions, a church that deliberately facilitates social opportunities and community building may fit naturally into changing attitudes in the contemporary religious climate.  Necessarily, such shifts lead to a change in the nature of the church’s role in the lives of its mem-bers and correspondingly, changing architectural forms Liturgical reforms mid-century as well as ongo-ing trends of deemphasizing scripture in favor of more general, holistic approaches are in keeping with     25objectives of the church to fit seamlessly and effortlessly into members’ everyday lives, often consciously downplaying aspects of traditional Christian teachings that hinder this.83 With such elision of tradition-al mainstays of the worship experience, the non-denominational church continues to fulfill its endur-ing role as a locus of social connection and community building. As the traditional roles of the church change and it becomes less and less conspicuous in many ways, this ability to provide social connection and a sense of community, I argue, becomes ever more important.  For this project, therefore, the creation of social connection via architecture was an important driver of the design. Another important driver was the idea that for this project, the reuse of an existing, historical building could be naturally adapted and well-suited to the larger trends and objectives in Prot-estant architectural design. The Protestant ideas of increasing secularization of building form, blending worship practices into the fabric of everyday life as well as freedom from traditional religious architec-tural features make the use of an existing secular building a viable and useful prospect. When approach-ing the ideas of adaptive reuse, I engaged with theoretical approaches relating of the use of historical buildings, namely those of Viollet le Duc and John Ruskin, whose opposing views about the treatment and preservation of old buildings was the basis of much of the subsequent discourse on the subject.84 With these two opposing views, respectively, “an argument for license to alter, and the other is an oppo-site admonition against meddling,” there is the a sense of the high stakes and sensitivity required when approaching the decision to modify an existing building.85 Alois Riegl ascribed this conflict in theories to differing values attached to any particular building, including “commemorative values – including age-value, historical value and intentional commemorative value -as opposed to present-day values - including use-value and art value” and advocated acknowledgment and deliberate response to such qual-ities when approaching adaptive reuse of a building.86  Post WWII, with extensive demand for repairing damage done to buildings during the war, the CIAM congress held in 1933 convened to address the topic of architectural conservation, applying modernist ideas and approaches in their assessments and result-ing guidelines for preservation.87 A clear split emerged then between the discipline of architecture on one       26 hand and conservation on the other.88 However, over the course of the 20th century,  From the 1960s onwards, architecture and conservation moved closer to one another again.  Architects showed interest in working with historic buildings while conservators saw reuse of    historic buildings as an important aspect of their preservation. Currently, adaptive reuse is    emancipating to become a proper discipline within the broader field of architectural  conservation.89Such shifts and developments in opinion regarding architectural conservation informed this project, making clear the need for an intentional, sensitive approach that preserved the character of the original building, while adding to it with additions that were clear and distinct in their newness and not seeking to blend in with the old. Such an approach was intended to create a harmonious meeting of the old and new, in keeping with theories of sensitive approaches in the field of adaptive reuse.     27GP II Analysis of Chosen Site Wondering how I might go about this in the context of Vancouver led me to research historical and vacant buildings around the city. I came across information about aging BC hydro infrastructure, specifically a number of substations scattered around the metro area. Several of these have prominent presences in the city and are older, built in the early or mid 20th-century and as power demands grow in Vancouver and the aging infrastructure can’t keep up, these substations are reaching the end of their life cycles and are being slated for decommissioning in the next few years and leaving interesting and often heritage registered buildings potentially free.  After learning about these I chose Sperling Annex rectifier station in the Shaughnessy neighbor-hood, as the site for this project mostly for the character of the building and for the generous size and location of the site.  This building was built between 1912 and 1918, designed by Robert Lyon for the BC electric railway and is no longer in operation.90 It has been designated a class C heritage building mean-ing it provides contextual or character heritage and according the City of Vancouver heritage register “contributes to the historic character of an area or streetscape.”91 For the scope of this project I decided to treat the existing building as a shell, not being able to determine what was really going on in the interior. I decided to treat the inside as completely re-imagined and have a freedom from what may have been there in reality.  The site is a little under one acre in area, and of primary importance to this project, is adjacent to the Arbutus greenway, Vancouver’s accessible public space for walking, cycling and also the site of a fu-ture streetcar system. Extending from W 1st avenue in the north to Milton street in the south the green-way is an 8.8 kilometer stretch of land that from 1902 to 2001 was owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway and used for an interurban passenger and regional freight train service.92 Bought by the city of Vancouver in 2016, the Arbutus greenway is now the site of future development in the form of a streetcar system and as such a crucial route in the larger transit network of the city.93     28 The City of Vancouver is scheduled to finalize a detailed master plan of the greenway’s develop-ment this year, in 2019, but the preliminary designs released to date outline two phases of development for the greenway—phase one which is expected to be implemented between 2019 and 2022 and phase two, that has a proposed completion date of 2034.94 The greenway has been divided into eight different zones and given different priority ranking and some of them will be addressed earlier and later in the overall development scheme accordingly. Proposed improvements included fully segregated walking and cycling pathways, public gathering areas, site furniture including benches and drinking fountains, public washrooms, lighting, green infrastructure and areas of native vegetation.95 The proposed streetcar system will also be implemented in conjunction with the Broadway corridor expansion planned by the city.96 The proximity of such a public transit and recreation corridor has huge implications for the chosen site for this project and in conjunction with the design objectives for the church itself, help create the potential of community building and social connection in this project.    29Program & Organization The siting and orientation of my new additions to the existing building, as well as some of the large formal moves, were determined by the proximity of the greenway. I chose to orient the southwest facade parallel to the greenway path , break-in the axis and symmetry of the old building, in order to create more visual connection between the building and users of the greenway. Steps and pathways create visual, welcoming entryways into the site for passersby, and a highly visible entrance to the building, immediately identifiable from far away, guides them inside. Because the greenway is slated to become such an important transit route, I chose to orient the building and entrance visible to it rather than to the neighboring King Edward avenue, in the hopes of making the whole area, the greenway and the site itself an interconnected locus of movement, social activity and exchange. King Edward Avenue, dominate more by vehicle traffic is also connected to the site via Maple Crescent and a drop off lane for vehicles and pathways and visual cues for pedestrians.  Another driver of the design was the specific needs of the congregation for functional and aes-thetically appropriate worship space and for housing additional program. The worship space itself I de-signed with the ideas of the “gathered church” in mind--congregants seated on three sides of the platform so that they can see each other and feel a sense of togetherness and with no physical barriers between platform or between pastor and congregation. The need for expressive, atmospheric light in the worship space motivated a system of cladding that would modulate the strong Southwest light entering the wor-ship space and also provide a sense of privacy and seclusion to those within—a kind of visual metering to screen the actives outside from direct view while still providing some exchange as far as light and sight. Clerestory windows, soaring ceiling heights and the existing windows of the station  further the atmo-spheric light brought down into the worship space, with a variety of window types to again add contrast between the old and new.     30The overall space planning and organization in the building serves to form what architect Edward Sovik calls a “social concourse” en route to the worship space.97 This idea holds that the church is a site of community building throughout and that  gathering and socializing occur as people move  through the building to and from the worship services. For this reason, I have divided the building into two axes one a long entry sequence that draws people deep into the building before they turn and move along the other axis to the worship space. This organizational strategy holds true for the additional floors of the building, with the narrow long bay holding circulation and more public social functions and services and the other side holding the specific and private function of the church.  The program of the proposed church is modest, not seeking to expand on that of a typical Prot-estant church found in any North American city. Its focus is the worship space, with minimal additional programming other than “secondary worship” functions—provisions for parents for childcare, space for youth worship programs and multi-purpose space for other worship-related programs put on by the church. The spatial organization distributes these between three floors, with active and public program elements on each level. On the ground level, there is a worship space holding 150 people, administrative and pastor’s office space, a flexible-use entry area and service space. The second floor holds a cafe, dining/lounge area, two Sunday school/multipurpose classrooms, one with a computer lab and one with a small library and service space. The third floor contains the childcare facilities, an administrative center with office space and a meeting room, a small lounge area and service space.     31Design Resolution : DrawingsFigure 31. Proposed Routes of  Vancouver’s Future Streetcar System, scale 1”=45,000’NArbutus GreenwayPhase 0 StreetcarPacific Boulevard ExtensionPhase 1 StreetcarStanley Park Extension      32Figure 32. Site Context Plan, scale 1”=150’N     33Two Phases of  Proposed Arbutus Greenway DevelopmentFigure 33. Phase 1: Expansion and Upgrades98Figure 34. Phase 2: Streetcar System99     34Arbutus StreetKing Edward AvenueMaple CrescentFigure 35.Existing Site Plan, scale 1/32”=1’0”N     35Figure 36. Existing Building Elevation, Northeast Facade, scale 1/16” = 1’0”       36Figure 37. Existing Building Elevation, Southeast Facade, Scale 1/16” = 1’0’     37Figure 38. Existing Building Elevation, Southwest Facade, Scale 1/16” = 1’0’     38Figure 39. Existing Building Elevation, Northwest Facade, Scale 1/16” = 1’0’     39visual engagementaccesslight strategiesSgradient of  new interventionunaltered alteration,additionFigure 40. Design Strategy Diagrams     40Figure 41. Proposed Site Plan, Scale 1/32”=1’0”Arbutus StreetKing Edward AvenueMaple CrescentN       41Figure 42. Level 1 Floor Plan, Scale 1/16” = 1’0”N     42Figure 43. Level 2 Floor Plan, Scale 1/16” = 1’0”N     43Figure 44. Level 3 Floor Plan, Scale 1/16” = 1’0”N     44Figure 45. Proposed building longitudinal Section, Scale 1/16”=1’0”Figure 46. Proposed building cross section, Scale 1/16”=1’0”    45Figure 47. Proposed Building Elevation, Northeast Facade, Scale 1/16” = 1’0’    46Figure 48. Proposed Building Elevation, Southeast Facade, Scale 1/16” = 1’0’     47Figure 49. Proposed Building Elevation, Southwest Facade, Scale 1/16” = 1’0’     48Figure 50. Proposed Building Elevation, Northwest Facade, Scale 1/16” = 1’0’     49Figure 51.Perspective View from near Arbutus path looking East     50Figure 52. Entry route to worship space    51Figure 53. Perspective from second floor cafe       52Figure 54. View southwest from worship space       53Figure 55. Stage and original Sperling elements in worship space     54Notes 1. Mark van Manen and B.C. Hydro, “B.C. Hydro Lays Plans for Two New Downtown Vancouver Substations, Deep Underground.” Vancouver Sun, 20 Jan. 2017. 2. “East Vancouver Substation,” BC Hydro - Power Smart, www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/ projects/east-vancouver-substation.html.van. 3. “Murrin Substation,” Vancouver Heritage Foundation, www.vancouverheritagefoundation.org/ location/721-main-st-vancouver-bc/. 4. “The Dal Grauer Substation – Architectural Art,” Heritage Vancouver, heritagevancouver.org/ top10-watch-list/2010/8-the-dal-grauer-substation/. 5. “Sperling Annex Substation,” Vancouver Heritage Foundation, www.vancouverheritagefounda tion.org/location/4003-maple-st-vancouver-bc/. 6. Anne C. Loveland and Otis B. Wheeler, From Meetinghouse to Megachurch: a Material and Cultural History (University of  Missouri Press, 2003)188. 7. Kimberly Karnes et al., “Mighty Fortresses: Explaining the Spatial Distribution of  American Megachurches.” Journal for the Scientific Study of  Religion, vol. 46, no. 2, 2007: 262. 8. Louis P. Nelson, “Placing the Sacred: Reflections on Contemporary American Church Architecture.” Institute of  Sacred Music: Colloquium Journal, no. 4, 2007: 2-4. 9. Benjamin Wormald,“Religious Practices and Experiences.” Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, 5 Jan. 2017. 10. Ilse Helbrecht, New Urbanism : Life, Work, and Space in the New Downtown, edited by Peter Dirks-meier (Routledge, 2012) 2-3. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest. com/lib/ubc/detaiaction?docID=866381. 11. Aaron Passell, Building the New Urbanism: Places, Professions and Profits in the American Metropolitan Landscape (London: Routledge, 2013) 13.     55 12. Bernard Tschumi, Architecture and Disjunction (MIT Press, 1999) 139. 13. Peter Zumthor and Maureen Oberli-Turner, Thinking Architecture (L. Müller, 1998) 10. 14. “Rafael Moneo on John Soane and Building on History,” Architectural Review, www.archi-tectur al-review.com/essays/rafael-moneo-on-john-soane-and-building-on-history/10026831. 15. Sigfried Giedion, Space, Time and Architecture: the Growth of  a New Tradition (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1941) 7. 16. Trevor Garnham, Architecture Re-assembled: the Use (and Abuse) of  History (London: Routledge, 2013) 199-200. 17. Robert Venturi et al, Learning from Las Vegas (The MIT Press, 2017) 7-8. 18. Loveland, 111. 19. “Murrin Substation.” 20. Ibid. 21. Ibid. 22. van Manen, “B.C. Hydro Lays Plans.” 23. Ibid. 24. “East Vancouver Substation.” 25. “The Dal Grauer Substation.” 26. “BC Hydro Dal Grauer Substation: Burrard Arts Foundation and Capture 2015 Public Art Commission,” Capture Photography Festival, capturephotofest.com/public-installations/ bc-hydro-dal-grauer-substation-capture-2015-public-art-commission/. 27. Ibid. 28. “The Dal Grauer Substation.” 29. Ibid.  30. Ibid. 31. Ibid.       56 32. “Sperling Annex Substation.” 33. Ibid. 34. Barney Warf  and Morton Winsberg, “Geographies of  Megachurches in the United States.” Journal of  Cultural Geography, vol. 27, no. 1, 2010: 41. 35. Ibid., 42. 36. Karnes, 262. 37. Robbie B. H Goh, “Hillsong and “megachurch” Practice: Semiotics, Spatial Logic and the Embodiment of  Contemporary Evangelical Protestantism,” Material Religion, vol. 4, no. 3, 2008: 286. 38. Warf, 33. 39. Karnes, 261. 40. Ibid. 41. “Database of  Megachurches in the U.S,” Exploring the Megachurch Phenomena: Their Characteristics and Cultural Context, The Hartford Institute for Religion Research, hirr.hartsem.edu/mega church/database.html. 42. Karnes, 263. 43. Ibid., 262. 44. Warf, 35. 45. Matthew Wade, “Seeker-Friendly: The Hillsong Megachurch as an Enchanting Total Institution.” Journal of  Sociology, vol. 52, no. 4, Sept. 2016: 664. 46. Loveland, 179. 47. Ibid. 48. “Database of  Megachurches in the US.” 49. Loveland, 181-185. 50. Ibid., 188. 51. Goh, 288.      57 52. Karnes, 262.  53. Brian Lonsway, “Spiritual Summit: Lakewood Church Recasts the Role of  Sacred Architec-  ture,” Cite: The Architecture + Design Review of  Houston, no 74, Apr. 2008: 16-17. 54.Lakewood Church Exterior from “Lakewood Church Renovation Team | Osteen   Renovation.” Houston Architects, Studio Red Architects, 14 Aug. 2017, www.studioredarchitects. com/lakewood-church-houston-texas/.  55. “Lakewood Church.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 24 Nov. 2017, en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Lakewood_Church#/media/File:Lakewood_worship.jpg.  56.  “Gateway Church.” Kramer, Howard “Largest Congregations in America, Part   2--Non-Denominational).” The Complete Pilgrim - Religious Travel Sites, 26 Mar.2018, thecompletepil-grim.com/largest-congregations-in-america-part-two-non-denomi   national-churches/. 57.Gateway Church Sanctuary from “Gateway Church Opts for Comprehensive Meyer   Sound Solution at New Campus.”  Sound Forums, 8 Aug. 2011, soundforums.net/news/190790-gate-way-church-opts-for-comprehensive-meyer-sound-solution-at-new-campus. 58. Willow Creek Exterior from Goodstein, Laurie. “Willow Creek Church’s Top Leadership Resigns Over Allegations Against Bill Hybels.” The New York Times, 9 Aug. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/08/08/us/willow-creek-church-resignations-bill-hybels.html. 59. “Willow Creek Community Church.” JDH Engineering :: jdheng.com/portfolio/wil-low-creek-community-church/. 60. “North Point Community Church.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 21 Aug. 2018,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Point_Community_Church#/media/File:North_Point_Community_Church,_Alpharetta,_GA_June_2017.jpg. 61. North Point Sanctuary from “Tours.” Inside North Point, insidenorthpoint.org/tours/. 62.Nelson, 1. 63. Loveland, 130.     58 64. Nelson, 1. 65. Ibid. 66. Loveland, 113. 67. Ibid., 108. 68. Ibid., 109. 69. Ibid. 70. Ibid. 71. Albert Christ-Janer and Mary Foley, Modern Church Architecture: a Guide to the Form and Spirit of  20th Century Religious Buildings ( McGraw-Hill, 1962) 122. 72. Ibid., 122.  73. Ibid.  74. Ibid., 123. 75. Loveland, 109. 76. Ibid., 111. 77. Ibid., 109. 78. Richard Kieckhefer, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley ( Oxford Uni-versity Press, 2008) 12. 79. Ibid. 80. Christ-Janer, 123. 81. Thomas Luckmann, Invisible Religion (The Macmillan Company, 1967). 82. Ibid., 39. 83. Christine Miller and Nathan Carlin, “Joel Osteen as Cultural Selfobject: Meeting the Needs of  the Group Self  and Its Individual Members in and from the Largest Church in America,” Pastoral Psychology, vol. 59, no. 1, 2009: 30.     59 84. Fred Scott, On Altering Architecture (Routledge, 2008) 47. 85. Ibid. 86. B. Plevoets and K. Van Cleempoel, “Adaptive Reuse as a Strategy towards Conservation of  Cultural Heritage: a Literature Review,” Jan. 2012: 2. 87. Ibid., 5. 88. Ibid. 89. Ibid. 90. “Sperling Annex Substation.” 91. City of  Vancouver Planning and Development Services, “Vancouver Heritage Inventory1986.” 92. City of  Vancouver, “Appendix C--Arbutus Greenway Implementation Strategy.” 2018: 2.  93. Ibid., 2. 94. Ibid., 3-4. 95. Ibid. 96. Ibid., 2-3. 97. E. A. Sovik, Architecture for Worship (Augsburg Pub. House, 1973) 55. 98. City of  Vancouver, “Appendix C--Arbutus Greenway Implementation Strategy.” 2018: 8.     60Works Cited“BC Hydro Dal Grauer Substation: Burrard Arts Foundation and Capture 2015 Public Art  Commission.” Capture Photography Festival, capturephotofest.com/public-installations/    bc-hydro-dal-grauer-substation-capture-2015-public-art-commission/.Christ-Janer, Albert, and Mary Foley. Modern Church Architecture: a Guide to the Form and Spirit of  20th Century    Religious Buildings. McGraw-Hill, 1962.City of  Vancouver, “Appendix C--Arbutus Greenway Implementation Strategy.” 2018.“Database of  Megachurches in the U.S.” Exploring the Megachurch Phenomena: Their Characteristics and Cultural  Context, The Hartford Institute for Religion Research, hirr.hartsem.edu/megachurch/database.   html.“The Dal Grauer Substation – Architectural Art.” Heritage Vancouver, heritagevancouver.org/    top10-watch-list/2010/8-the-dal-grauer-substation/.“East Vancouver Substation.” BC Hydro - Power Smart, www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/projects/   east-vancouver-substation.html.vanGarnham, Trevor. Architecture Re-assembled: the Use (and Abuse) of  History. London: Routledge, 2013.Giedion, Sigfried. Space, Time and Architecture: the Growth of  a New Tradition. Cambridge: Harvard University  Press, 1941.Goh, Robbie B. H. “Hillsong and “megachurch” Practice: Semiotics, Spatial Logic and the  Embodiment of  Contemporary Evangelical Protestantism.” Material Religion, vol. 4, no. 3, 2008,    pp. 284–304.Helbrecht, Ilse. New Urbanism : Life, Work, and Space in the New Downtown, edited by Peter      Dirksmeier, Routledge, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.    com/lib/ubc/detail.action?docID=866381.     61Karnes, Kimberly, et al. “Mighty Fortresses: Explaining the Spatial Distribution of  American    Megachurches.” Journal for the Scientific Study of  Religion, vol. 46, no. 2, 2007, pp. 261–268.Kieckhefer, Richard. Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley. Ox-    ford University Press, 2008.Lonsway, Brian. “Spiritual Summit: Lakewood Church Recasts the Role of  Sacred Architecture.”   Cite: The Architecture + Design Review of  Houston, no 74, Apr. 2008, p. 14.Loveland, Anne C., and Otis B. Wheeler. From Meetinghouse to Megachurch: a Material and Cultural History.   University of  Missouri Press, 2003.Luckmann, Thomas. Invisible Religion. The Macmillan Company, 1967.“Murrin Substation.” Vancouver Heritage Foundation, www.vancouverheritagefoundation.org/   location/721-main-st-vancouver-bc/.Nelson, Louis P. “Placing the Sacred: Reflections on Contemporary American Church  Architecture.” Institute of  Sacred Music: Colloquium Journal, no. 4, 2007.Passell, Aaron. Building the New Urbanism: Places, Professions and Profits in the American Metropolitan Landscape.   London: Routledge, 2013. Plevoets, B., and K. Van Cleempoel. “Adaptive Reuse as a Strategy towards Conservation of  Cultural   Heritage: a Literature Review.” WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, 2011, doi:10.2495/  str110131.“Rafael Moneo on John Soane and Building on History.” Architectural Review, www.architectural- review.com/essays/rafael-moneo-on-john-soane-and-building-on-history/10026831.Scott, Fred. On Altering Architecture. Routledge, 2008.“Sperling Annex Substation.” Vancouver Heritage Foundation, www.vancouverheritagefounda   tion.org/location/4003-maple-st-vancouver-bc/.     62Sovik, E. A. Architecture for Worship. Augsburg Pub. House, 1973.Stegers, Rudolf, et al. Sacred Buildings: a Design Manual. Birkhäuser, 2010.Tschumi, Bernard. Architecture and Disjunction. MIT Press, 1999. van Manen, Mark, and B.C. Hydro. “B.C. Hydro Lays Plans for Two New Downtown Vancouver Sub   stations, Deep Underground.” Vancouver Sun, 20 Jan. 2017, vancouversun.com/news/lo    cal-news/b-c-hydro-lays-plans-for-two-new-downtown-vancouver-substations-deep-underground.Venturi, Robert, et al. Learning from Las Vegas. The MIT Press, 2017.Wade, Matthew. “Seeker-Friendly: The Hillsong Megachurch as an Enchanting Total Institution.”  Journal of  Sociology, vol. 52, no. 4, Sept. 2016, pp. 661–676.Warf, Barney, and Morton Winsberg. “Geographies of  Megachurches in the United States.”     Journal of  Cultural Geography, vol. 27, no. 1, 2010, pp. 33–51.Weiss, Jonathan D.; Lowell, Randy. “Supersizing Religion: Megachurches, Sprawl and Smart     Growth.” Saint Louis University Public Law Review 21.2(2002): pp. 313-319.Wormald, Benjamin. “Religious Practices and Experiences.” Pew Research Center’s Religion     & Public Life Project, Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, 5 Jan. 2017,     www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/chapter-2-religious-practices-and-experiences/.Zumthor, Peter, and Maureen Oberli-Turner. Thinking Architecture. L. Müller, 1998.    63BibliographyAvermaete, Tom, et al. Architectural Positions: Architecture, Modernity and the Public Sphere. SUN Publishers,    2009.“BC Hydro Dal Grauer Substation: Burrard Arts Foundation and Capture 2015 Public Art  Commission.” Capture Photography Festival, capturephotofest.com/public-installations/    bc-hydro-dal-grauer-substation-capture-2015-public-art-commission/.Bouyer, Louis. Liturgy and Architecture. University of  Notre Dame Press, 1967.Chaves, Mark. “All Creatures Great and Small: Megachurches in Context.” Review of  Religious Research,    vol. 47, no. 4, 2006, pp. 329–346.Christ-Janer, Albert, and Mary Foley. Modern Church Architecture: a Guide to the Form and Spirit of  20th Century    Religious Buildings. McGraw-Hill, 1962.City of  Vancouver, “Appendix C--Arbutus Greenway Implementation Strategy.” 2018.Collins, Harold E. The Church Edifice and Its Appointments. Newman Press, 1962.Conde, Yago. Architecture of  Indeterminacy. Actar, 2000.Cubitt, James. Church Design for Congregations: Its Developments and Possibilities. Smith, Elder and Co., 1870.“The Dal Grauer Substation – Architectural Art.” Heritage Vancouver, heritagevancouver.org/    top10-watch-list/2010/8-the-dal-grauer-substation/.“Database of  Megachurches in the U.S.” Exploring the Megachurch Phenomena: Their Charac-    teristics and Cultural Context, The Hartford Institute for Religion Research, hirr.hartsem.   edu/megachurch/database.html.Dragan, Radu, and Augustin Ioan. Symbols and Language in Sacred Christian Architecture. E. Mellen Press    1996.Eagle, D. E. “Historicizing the Megachurch.” Journal of  Social History, vol. 48, no. 3, 2015, pp.  589–604.    64“East Vancouver Substation.” BC Hydro - Power Smart, www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/projects/   east-vancouver-substation.html.Elisha, Omri. Moral Ambition, Mobilization and Social Outreach in Evangelical Megachurches. University of   California Press, 2011.Ellingson, Stephen. Megachurch and the Mainline: Remaking Religious Tradition in the Twenty-first Century.     University of  Chicago Press, 2007.Garnham, Trevor. Architecture Re-assembled: the Use (and Abuse) of  History. London: Routledge, 2013.Giedion, Sigfried. Space, Time and Architecture: the Growth of  a New Tradition. Cambridge: Harvard     University Press, 1941.Goh, Robbie B. H. “Hillsong and “megachurch” Practice: Semiotics, Spatial Logic and  the  Embodiment of  Contemporary Evangelical Protestantism.” Material Religion, vol. 4, no. 3,    2008, pp. 284–304.Hammond, Peter. Towards a Church Architecture. Architectural Press, 1962.Harris, Steven, and Deborah Berke. Architecture of  the Everyday. Princeton Architectural Press, 1997.Helbrecht, Ilse. New Urbanism : Life, Work, and Space in the New Downtown, edited by Peter  Dirksmeier, Routledge, 2012. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.    com/lib/ubc/detail.action?docID=866381.Howe, Jeffery. Houses of  Worship: an Identification Guide to the History and Styles of  American Religious Architecture.    Thunder Bay Press, 2003.Jones, Lindsay. The Hermeneutics of  Sacred Architecture: Experience, Interpretation, Comparison. Harvard  University Press, 2000.Karandinou, Anastasia. No Matter: Theories and Practices of  the Ephemeral in Architecture. Routledge, 2017.Karnes, Kimberly, et al. “Mighty Fortresses: Explaining the Spatial Distribution of  American     Megachurches.” Journal for the Scientific Study of  Religion, vol. 46, no. 2, 2007, pp. 261–268.     65Kennedy, Roger G. American Churches. Stewart, Tabori & Chang, 1982.Kieckhefer, Richard. Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to Berkeley. Oxford  University Press, 2008.Kilde, Jeanne Halgren. Sacred Power, Sacred Space: an Introduction to Christian Architecture and Worship. Oxford    University Press, 2008.Kilde, Jeanne Halgren. When Church Became Theatre: the Transformation of  Evangelical Architecture and Worship in  19th-Century America. Oxford University Press, 2005.King, Anthony D. Re-Presenting the City: Ethnicity, Capital and Culture in the Twenty-First Century     Metropolis. Macmillan, 1996.Koolhaas, Rem, and Bruce Mau. S, M, L, XL. Monacelli Press, 1998.Kärrholm, Mattias. Retailising Space: Architecture, Retail and the Territorialisation of  Public Space. Ashgate, 2013.Lang, Jon T., and Nancy Marshall. Urban Squares as Places, Links and Displays: Successes and Failures.     Routledge, 2017.Lindenbaum, John. “The Pastoral Role of  Contemporary Christian Music: the Spiritualization of  Everyday Life in a Suburban Evangelical Megachurch.” Social & Cultural Geography, vol. 13, no. 1,   2012, pp. 69–88.Lonsway, Brian. “Spiritual Summit: Lakewood Church Recasts the Role of  Sacred Architecture.”    Cite: The Architecture + Design Review of  Houston, no 74, Apr. 2008, p. 14.Loveland, Anne C., and Otis B. Wheeler. From Meetinghouse to Megachurch: a Material and Cultural     History. University of  Missouri Press, 2003.Luckmann, Thomas. Invisible Religion. The Macmillan Company, 1967.Maddox, Marion. “‘In the Goofy Parking Lot’: Growth Churches as a Novel Religious Form     for Late Capitalism.” Social Compass, vol. 59, no. 2, 1 June 2012, pp. 146–158.    66Manen, Mark van, and B.C. Hydro. “B.C. Hydro Lays Plans for Two New Downtown  Vancouver Substations, Deep Underground.” Vancouver Sun, 20 Jan. 2017, vancouversun.    com/news/local-news/b-c-hydro-lays-plans-for-two-new-downtown-vancouver-     substations-deep-underground.Miller, Christine, and Nathan Carlin. “Joel Osteen as Cultural Selfobject: Meeting the Needs of      the Group Self  and Its Individual Members in and from the Largest Church in America.”    Pastoral Psychology, vol. 59, no. 1, 2009, pp. 27–51. Morone, James A. The Democratic Wish: Popular Participation and the Limits of  American Government. Yale  University Press, 1998.“Murrin Substation.” Vancouver Heritage Foundation, www.vancouverheritagefoundation.org/loca   tion/721-main-st-vancouver-bc/.Najle, Ciro. The Generic Sublime: Organizational Models for Global Architecture. Harvard University     Graduate School of  Design, 2016.Nelson, Louis P. “Placing the Sacred: Reflections on Contemporary American Church Architecture.”    Institute of  Sacred Music: Colloquium Journal, no. 4, 2007.Norman, Edward. The House of  God: Church Architecture, Style and History. Thames & Hudson, 2005.Passell, Aaron. Building the New Urbanism: Places, Professions and Profits in the American Metropolitan Landscape.    London: Routledge, 2013.Parisi, Luciana. Contagious Architecture: Computation, Aesthetics, and Space. The MIT Press, 2013.Plevoets, B., and K. Van Cleempoel. “Adaptive Reuse as a Strategy towards Conservation of   Cultural Heritage: a Literature Review.” WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, 2011,     doi:10.2495/str110131.       67“Rafael Moneo on John Soane and Building on History.” Architectural Review, www.architectur    al-review.com/essays/rafael-moneo-on-john-soane-and-building-on-history/10026831.    article.Roulin, E., et al. Modern Church Architecture. B. Herder Book Co., 1947.Ruhr, Marc Von Der, and Joseph P. Daniels. “Subsidizing Religious Participation Through Groups: A    Model of  the ‘Megachurch’ Strategy for Growth.” Review of  Religious Research, vol. 53,     no. 4, Jan. 2011, pp. 471–491.Scott, Fred. On Altering Architecture. Routledge, 2008.Skocpol, Theda, and Morris P. Fiorina. Civic Engagement in American Democracy. Brookings Institution Press,   1999.Skocpol, Theda. Diminished Democracy: from Membership to Management in American Civic Life. University of     Oklahoma Press, 2013.Smart, Ninian. Dimensions of  the Sacred: an Anatomy of  the World’s Beliefs. University of  California Press,1996.Sovik, E. A. Architecture for Worship. Augsburg Pub. House, 1973.Spaulding, Norman W. “ Enclosure of  Justice: Courthouse Architecture, Due Process, and the     Dead Metaphor of  Trial,” Yale Journal of  Law & the Humanities: Vol. 24: Iss. 1, 2012, pp. 311-344.“Sperling Annex Substation.” Vancouver Heritage Foundation, www.vancouverheritagefounda    tion.org/location/4003-maple-st-vancouver-bc/.Stegers, Rudolf, et al. Sacred Buildings: a Design Manual. Birkhäuser, 2010.Taylor, Richard. How to Read a Church: a Guide to Images, Symbols, and Meanings in Churches and     Cathedrals. Hidden Spring, 2005.Tschumi, Bernard. Architecture and Disjunction. MIT Press, 1999.Tschumi, Bernard. Event-Cities: (Praxis). The MIT Press, 1999.       68Twitchell, James B. Branded Nation: the Marketing of  Megachurch, College, Inc., and Museumworld. Simon  & Schuster, 2006.Venturi, Robert. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. Museum of  Modern Art; Distributed by  New    York Graphic, 1977.Venturi, Robert, et al. Learning from Las Vegas. The MIT Press, 2017.Wade, Matthew. “Seeker-Friendly: The Hillsong Megachurch as an Enchanting Total Institution.”  Journal of  Sociology, vol. 52, no. 4, Sept. 2016, pp. 661–676.Warf, Barney, and Morton Winsberg. “Geographies of  megachurches in the United States.” Journal of     Cultural Geography, vol. 27, no. 1, 2010, pp. 33–51.Weiss, Jonathan D.; Lowell, Randy. “Supersizing Religion: Megachurches, Sprawl and Smart Growth.”    Saint Louis University Public Law Review 21.2(2002): pp. 313-319.Wellman, James K., et al. “ “God Is Like a Drug…”: Explaining Interaction Ritual Chains in American    Megachurches.” Sociological Forum, vol. 29, no. 3, 2014, pp. 650–672.Westfall, Carroll William. Architecture, Liberty and Civic Order: Architectural Theories from  Vitruvius to Jefferson and    Beyond. Routledge, 2017.Wilkinson, Tom. Bricks and Mortals: Ten Great Buildings and the People They Made. Bloomsbury, 2014.Wormald, Benjamin. “Religious Practices and Experiences.” Pew Research Center’s Religion     & Public Life Project, Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, 5 Jan. 2017,     www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/chapter-2-religious-practices-and-experiences/.Wyche, Susan P., et al. “Exploring the Use of  Large Displays in American Megachurches.” CHI 07 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems - CHI 07, 2007, pp.     2771–2776.Wyche, Susan P., et al. “Technology in Spiritual Formation.” Proceedings of  the 2006 20th Anniversary    Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW 06, 4 Nov. 2006, pp. 199–208.  69Yates, Nigel. Liturgical Space, Christian Worship, and Church Buildings in Western Europe 1500-2000. Taylor and    Francis, 2017.Zumthor, Peter, and Maureen Oberli-Turner. Thinking Architecture. L. Müller, 1998.  70

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.42591.1-0378598/manifest

Comment

Related Items