Architecture and Building

Progress, Volume VIII, Issue 11, 1 July 1913, Page 541

Architecture and Building

By Leslie D. Coomba, A.R.1.8.A.

Church Design and Construction

Throughout the ages men have constructed shelters in which to worship their, Gods—have beautified those shelters, shaped, wrought, and worked them until they have been successful in erecting places worthy of their humility, their reverence, their love and their fear of the almighty powers controlling this earth. We, too, have churches to build; and it is how best to set about designing and constructing them that concerns modern architects. In the first place, architects should thoroughly understand the two great purposes of a church, namely:—(l) A place for worshippers; (2) A place for auditories. How often are these great simple purposes considered? In the majority of New Zealand churches our architects have almost wholly neglected the former,'and have evidently but imperfectly understood the principles of acoustics, the study of which is so necessary for a design suitable for the latter. I therefore now intend to outline the main factors to be considered in church design and construction. A place for worshippers should be quiet, that is to say, jarring noises such as the passing of a tram, the call of a newsboy and the thousand and one other street sounds familiar to our ears should be excluded by thick and soundproof walls. It should not be over-well lighted, for bright light is disturbing and somewhat irritating, and is by no means soothing or helpful to a thinker. It should be perfectly heated and ventilated, for cold or warm, draughty or stuffy churches are obviously bad. It should be good acoustically, for the notes of good and suitable music have a great influence in uplifting men’s minds. It should be so designed that no portion of the congregation can have a clear 'view of another, for worshippers do not like to be exposed to public gaze—not for reasons of shame, but for right and proper instincts of modesty. It should be beautiful—not beautiful by elaborate and meaningless ornamentation, but beautiful in the right and truthful use of good materials and good workmanship, where it is clearly seen that the designers and the workmen and all other people connected with the erection of the church have given their best skill untiringly, ungrudgingly and honestly. If a church be not beautiful for these reasons it cannot be perfection as a place for worshippers. A place for auditories, where a congregation is taught by a preacher, should have all the qualities mentioned above, but the reasons for such qualities vary somewhat and other factors enter into consideration, so for the sake of clearness I shall outline each again. It should be quiet, that no noise should interefere with the preacher’s voice. It should be but dimly lighted, although a moderately

strong light should fall on the preacher, but not in his eyes. It should be properly heated and ventilated for hygienic reasons as well as for those of comfort. It should be perfect acoustically, for this is the main factor to be considered in the design of auditories. It should be designed so that each member of the congregation can see the preacher distinctly but not the rest of the congregation, for attention should not be taken from the preacher. It should be beautiful for the reasons mentioned previously, and should also be made beautiful with Biblical stories told by paintings, carvings, or other such mediums of expression. Such ornamentations have their distinct use and reason; and, when well and sincerely executed, are past criticism as works of art.

The primary factors to be considered in construction and style may be mentioned, A church is a monumental building and should be built of durable materials. It should be constructed truth - fully, for perhaps the biggest architectural fault to be found in the ordinary church is the use of mean materials and the cunning, artful and miserable attempts that are made to make them appear what they are not. We have become so used to graining and marbling woodwork, staining and tuck-pointing bad brickwork, and lining plaster out in imitation of stone, that we do not realise what remarkably absurd and ugly features such shams are. If we can afford but rough brickwork let our churches be built of rough bricks: we can certainly see that such are well burnt and durable, and that the work is well and faithfully executed. If we can afford good masonry so much the better, and if marble and granite better still, but we must make sure that whatever we use is durable and of good quality. For instance, it is infinitely better to use good bricks than bad masonry. Nobody when building ought to have money to waste and no church building, except what is clearly intended only as a temporary erection, should be built of perishable materials.

I have said that our materials must not be made to imitate or appear to be other materials, likewise we must not imitate out-and-out old styles of architecture. “The imitation of old work with its and irregularities is false in art.” An architect’s duty is not to copy nor to reproduce, but to create buildings. Still, lie should make a thorough study of the work of the past and receive encouragement and suggestion from such work, and this fact applies not only to the construction and style of architecture of a church, but also to the planning and designing of the whole structure. As to a suitable style of architecture— mediaeval builders of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries used their reason when they evolved the Gothic style, which was as perfect as anything that human beings have created, for in the best examples of the

hundred and fifteen - feet long and we should be happy to think that the country would obtain such style no architectural lie was ever told. There was no waste of material. Every stone had a duty to perform, which it did in a way we moderns have been unable to improve upon.

The Gothic style was perfectly suitable for the requirements and the possibilities of construction of mediaeval days (as the classical styles were in classical days), but that does not say that it is and will be always perfectly suited for modern and future requirements and possibilities of construction. Steel construction and ferro-concrete are practically modern inventions that make it possible for us to build spans impossible to the Gothic builders, and it seems reasonable for us to utilise such materials and to evolve a new style suitable for such construction, if by so doing we can obtain any advantage. » But there is one argument, and a very strong one, why we should not yet depart from a developed Gothic style : Are our modern requirements, except, in exceptional circumstances, different from mediaeval ones? It seems evident that the difference is, after all, but slight, and especially is this so in Catholic churches. Is steel construction monumental in character? Steel is liable to rust away if damp gets to it, or to twist and buckle if fire touches it—in either case it will probably cause collapse of the building. Good brickwork or masonry have not these defects. Ferro-concrete has its advocates, but it is an ugly material, and, although most suitable for factory buildings and the like, it has not yet been treated in a way satisfactory for a beautiful effect. Clothing it with other materials cannot be considered satisfactory, and certainly is expensive.* Why then depart from the old methods? It is a significant fact that the best architects still adhere to them.