Ship of Fools: Sorting out the Shoebox

Thread: Sorting out the Shoebox Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025859

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I have been taking a serious look at our church building. This is a 48' by 30' shoebox with an apse 19' wide and 9'6" deep at the liturgical east end. If you were being extremely sharitable you could describe the floor plan as basilican. The ceiling height is about 10'4" and I have not get assessed the feasibility of opening up the ceiling.

There are some pictures at http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/ttac/stpaulphotoindex.html

So far I have evacuted all furniture except the altar, credence table and pulpit/ambo out of the apse, and the area between the front pew and the double step up to the apse as a short liturgical choir with the communion rails between the congregation and the choir.

Any thoughts, suggestions on how to improve the place? And no, bulldozing it and starting oer is NOT an option!

Many thanks,
PD

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

Oh my, this reminds me so much of a church from my past. At least your décor is more late-80s glam than mid-70s far-out.

To get the armchair-decorative ball rolling:

Ditch the wallpaper
Remove the 'rood screen' on your ceiling--it can't be structural, is it?
While you're at it, ditch the soffit lighting around the nave walls
What's above the drop ceiling? Can you raise the ceiling?
Eliminate sacristies on each side.
Remove front pews. Move chancel out. U-shaped communion rail.
Lose curvy walls of apse. New long sacristy in liturgical East, spanning width of space.
Carpet? Really?

I think the ceiling and wall lighting are probably the most pressing issues, if anything can be done with them. They seem to push one down into kneeling position.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

So you know what we are trying to make the space work for, I should perhaps mention that the liturgy here is 1928 BCP with some American Missal.

PD

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

Restain all your wood (sanctuary chairs and prie-dieux) to be the same color, preferably to all match your current darkest wood.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

My church is shaped similarly to yours, but was designed with Protestant Word-centric worship in mind. I've split the chancel by moving the pulpit to the south and put a lectern on the north, both off the "stage" area. I moved the altar up onto the "stage", right where it's the focal point of the room. I am forced to use the top of the organ for a creedence table, since I can't get rid of the instrument and can't fit a proper table. It being a Methodist church, the rails are pushed out in front of everything. But all of that work on my end makes it look a lot like yours already is. My ceiling is sheet rock where yours looks like paneling or something, but that's the major difference.

I think I'd swap carpet for hardwood, and I'd get rid of the ceiling if at all possible. I love the natural light coming in the windows; I think that's always better than electric light. It can be tricky to choose a fixture and bulb that gives enough light to see without being garish. If you end up getting rid of the ceiling, however, consider elongating the windows and putting in stained glass.

If there is any way to knock out the east wall and elongate the chancel/sanctuary, I would seriously consider it. That's what I'd like to do at my place. It would give you a proper quire, and would help with the ambiance. The only thing would be the acoustics, but there are experts who can help with that. Architects who design Church of Christ meeting houses, for instance. Or alternately knock out the west wall and shift everything west by that much.

This one may show my ignorance, but... can you pull the altar out and celebrate facing the people? Can you add, oh I don't know, two or four candlesticks to the altar? [Biased]

That's my two cents worth, anyhow.

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
The only thing would be the acoustics, but there are experts who can help with that. Architects who design Church of Christ meeting houses, for instance..

Only if you wish to be stuck with an unimaginative and ugly A-frame.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
The only thing would be the acoustics, but there are experts who can help with that. Architects who design Church of Christ meeting houses, for instance..
Only if you wish to be stuck with an unimaginative and ugly A-frame.

Not necessarily. I attended a wedding at a CofC, erm, building (this one had on the sign out front "So and So Church of Christ meets here", so I'm hesitant to call their building "the church" -- but I digress) and it was not an a-frame. It was a rather nice building, I might add. It was not exactly designed with liturgical worship in mind, but my point is simply that there are people out there who know how to design a building so it projects sound to the audience, and finding one to give a consultation would be a very good thing. Not having to have microphones (except maybe for the t-loop or recording) is a good thing, I think.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

You've changed buildings within recent memory: might you contemplate changing again?

I think the most pressing challenge would be to raise the ceiling.

I'm guessing the "rood" that Olaf objects to serves as a scrim to hide the ceiling fan over the sanctuary.

Of the pulpit and lectern, I'd be inclined to ditch one and move the remaining one closer to the midst. Or ditch them both and go Orthodox, with a preaching desk similar to this one. That cleans the sanctuary out more.

Strip out the wall paper and carpet as Olaf suggests. Plug the east window.

Then, perhaps, concentrate on commissioning and acquiring art worthy of your faith: stations of the cross, Marian effigy, an altar piece. One excellent piece every few years. My parish's memorial fund serves to underwrite vestments and metal work.

That way, if you are able to move again, or to build your own, you'll have furniture you won't have to chuck.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Raising the ceiling definitely has to be a big priority. Paneling instead of ceiling tiles could help if that isn't practical, but you'll never fit a for reals organ in that place without another 5-10 feet of airspace.

Nice, brass lighting fixtures instead of those track lights along the walls wouldn't hurt either.

[ 03. July 2013, 01:18: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
Not necessarily. I attended a wedding at a CofC, erm, building (this one had on the sign out front "So and So Church of Christ meets here", so I'm hesitant to call their building "the church" -- but I digress) and it was not an a-frame. It was a rather nice building, I might add. It was not exactly designed with liturgical worship in mind, but my point is simply that there are people out there who know how to design a building so it projects sound to the audience, and finding one to give a consultation would be a very good thing. Not having to have microphones (except maybe for the t-loop or recording) is a good thing, I think.

I am sure you are correct that there are some attractive meeting houses. I have never been in one, I have never seen one but I have heard rumors that they exist. Perhaps like Bigfoot. [Smile]

On a more serious note I do take slight exception to your statement that they are not designed for liturgical worship. They are designed for a type of liturgical worship, supremely designed for such. Said worship could fairly be called plain or even stark. It would most likely be found lacking on several levels by many of the denizens here but it is liturgical worship nonetheless.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

We have already discussed taking out the carpet, and I have also ascertained that they covered up a perfectly good hardwood floor with it. No-one likes the wallpaper, but no-one is in too much of a hurry to go through the aggro of trying to remove it!

The ceiling is acoustic tile tacked over a plywood ceiling which was originally panelled. Unfortunately the old roof mounted evaporative coolers leaked periodically which did nasty things to the plywood, so they fixed it by covering them in acoustic tile. I am not sure about the roof structure. The swamp cooler were replaced with A/C in spring 2012, which although not quite adequate does a better job as it cuts the humidity.

The 'rood beam' hides the ceiling fan (very neccessry in summer) and lighting fixtures, half of which have been disconnected as they gave suitably dramatic lighting for full immersion baptisms on the other side of the 'east window.'

The building was originally Church of God (Anderson Synod) and was built in 1927/8, and considerably extended in the early 1950s! Their tradition is word orientated whereas out MOTR Anglican tradition is more of a draw between word and sacrament.

PD

[ 03. July 2013, 06:44: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Prester John:
On a more serious note I do take slight exception to your statement that they are not designed for liturgical worship. They are designed for a type of liturgical worship, supremely designed for such. Said worship could fairly be called plain or even stark. It would most likely be found lacking on several levels by many of the denizens here but it is liturgical worship nonetheless.

I assure you no offence was meant, and I did consider that very thing. I merely could not think of a better way to describe it without making a wordy post even more wordy. How about we delete "liturgical" and insert "traditionally Anglican worship styles"?

[ 03. July 2013, 12:12: Message edited by: Barefoot Friar ]

Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :

I thought the ceiling was low and if it could be lifted it would make it more 'airy' and lend it more dignity, but it sounds as though you can't do that

What I would say though is that what we do in Church is perhaps more important than the actual building? At least you do have a building and I think I'd probably be comfortable worshipping there

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

The big challenge is the dais. It looks to me like a previous church hall and is designed for amateur dramatics along with lighting. Put a screen up in front of it and you will have a large cupboard with no light.

So firstly sort the lighting of it. At the moment its the darkest place, have you ever seen a theatre with drama going on and the stage unlit. You need to get more light onto the dais to concentrate people's focus on the proceedings. Two things I would say are essential, some method of illuminating the altar, and lighting so that the faces of those leading the worship are normally lit when facing the congregation. This helps people hear not just lip readers.

Secondly, keep it simple in that space, it too easily can look cluttered with clashing symbols. Staining the wood so it matches, matching neutral colours in any fabrics that show apart from on the dais. With stuff on the walls stick with less is more approach.

Jengie

Posted by geroff (# 3882) on :

Please bear with me as my church reordering experience is on UK C of E churches and country houses.
I would agree with others - that ceiling is just too low!
First thing - gently lift a ceiling tile or two, stick a digital camera in and take some flash pictures. This is an easy way of spotting what it is like up there. There may be visual issues with the revealed structure - you may just find that the reason that tiles were put in in the first place was to cover some dreadful structure - while you are at it you could put some insulation up there.
But this all assumes that you have some money to do this.

Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :

+1 to everything Olaf said.

Get rid of those chairs. They don't match and look like they were stolen from a dining room table. Get some that are less rounded. All of your other furnishing is straight edged. You need some chairs of the same style and color as the other pieces. Might as well get some with good cushions while you're at it. Stain or paint all the pews and apse pieces the same.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Saw three feet off the ends of several pews and stagger them throughout the rest of the pews, for wheelchair seating. There's no rule says that wheelchair users all have to sit together, or up front, or down the back.

Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :

geroff, I suspect that if he looks above the plywood the tiles are stuck to he'll find lumber joists that the plywood is attached to. If so, there's no reasonable way to raise the ceiling. It's still a good idea to have a look around up there for proper insulation and structural condition. If you remove the tiles and sheetrock the ceiling, it would be a great opportunity to insulate and install better lighting over the pews.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
geroff, I suspect that if he looks above the plywood the tiles are stuck to he'll find lumber joists that the plywood is attached to. If so, there's no reasonable way to raise the ceiling. It's still a good idea to have a look around up there for proper insulation and structural condition. If you remove the tiles and sheetrock the ceiling, it would be a great opportunity to insulate and install better lighting over the pews.

That's what I found when I looked in the false roof at the 'east' end of the building, but that is in the area above the old baptismal tank, and the apse where there is considerable evidence of several sets of alterations. I really need to climb through and rake a look further west to see what the original structure is like. It is most likely to be simple trusses all the way through, but given the building history of the place the only way to be certain is to go up there and look!

PD

[ 03. July 2013, 21:07: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
... Get rid of those chairs. They don't match and look like they were stolen from a dining room table. ...

Possibly as regards the ordinary wheelback ones, but I'm rather impressed with the episcopal one with the arms. It's distinctive. It looks a lot more comfortable, and more like the sort of chair a person would normally choose to sit on, than the rather ponderous episcopal chairs most churches are lumbered with. It's also easier to move. I like it.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

Is it possible to grab more square feet for the sanctuary by extending it into the baptismal area, liturgically east of the altar?

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Is it possible to grab more square feet for the sanctuary by extending it into the baptismal area, liturgically east of the altar?

Remove some pews, too, to facilitate the larger sanctuary. It is a rare church that cannot give up a row or three of pews. You'll be the talk of the church forever if your Easter liturgy draws in a standing room-only crowd. If anybody has carpentry skills, those pews can become your new sedilia!

This probably has gone without saying, but I'm afraid your quick solution to a communion rail probably needs to go, too. Extra credit for improvisation, but it's obviously the header (I don't know what other word to use) from the front of a bank of pews.

On a positive note, I do like the accent wall behind the altar. It's better than the dossal curtain in the pics of the old space.

[ 04. July 2013, 02:58: Message edited by: Olaf ]

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I had a look in the roof space this evening and it is a kingpost roof. There are joists across the full width, usually made of two pieces of lumber scarfed together, about every 3 feet. There are then a series of kingposts on the centre line of the building with braces from joists to rafters at either end. The down side is that raising the ceiling is either a no-go, or a very big job. The good side is that the roof structure is enormously strong.

I would think the easiest option would be to reskin the ceiling with sheet rock, and provide a modest moulded cornice at the same time as removing the present indirect lighting. The nave and sanctuary would then be lit mainly by can lights in the ceiling.

Version 1 - being the more radical

1. Knockout the sacristies and stage,
2. Turn the old baptistry into the main sacristy. There would also be a small sacristy on the right hand side where the piscina is housed. The is a small 4 by 8 projection on that side of the building which used to house half the ministers office.
3. Create a three sided sanctuary and rail against the east wall, roughly 10' deep by 20' wide where the present stage is. The foot pace and altar would go against the east wall. Improve lighting.
4. Utilize the space previously occupied by the sacristies for the clergy seats with the pulpit and reading desk at the west end of that area on the south side.

Version 2
1. Knock out stage, but retain apse. Lower floor level by about 8" This would improve access to the sacristies.
2. Remove the 'rood beam' and replace with a "flat" eliptical arch to define sanctuary area. The communion rail would then follow the one step leaving an area about 6' by 30' between it and the front row of chairs. The lectern and pulpit, and clergy seats for MP and EP couple then be put port and starboard outside the communion rails.
5. I am half tempted to complete the Georgian effect by painting the walls a pale green, and installing a wooden reredos behind the altar with the Creed, Decalogue, and Lord's Prayer

PD

[ 04. July 2013, 03:35: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

I think that the chairs definitely must go, and I'd replace them with dark wood Glastonbury chairs , which are smaller and more "churchly". Perhaps you can sell the current chairs to a never-remodeled 1970s' vintage seafood restaurant.

Then, I'd sell the two prie dieu to an antiques dealer and replace them with hassocks that can be tucked under the chairs when not in use.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Since it sounds like the low ceiling is staying, I was thinking something like this would look a lot better than the drop tiles.

You might create the illusion of aisles or mark off the sanctuary or the like by varying the size of the boxes in certain areas, or having some more built up (built down!) lines of molding. Finish off the walls with some pileasters and more molding and it'll look real boffo.

And I LIKE the Georgian idea!

[ 04. July 2013, 10:51: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ldjjd:
I think that the chairs definitely must go, and I'd replace them with dark wood Glastonbury chairs , which are smaller and more "churchly". Perhaps you can sell the current chairs to a never-remodeled 1970s' vintage seafood restaurant. ...

Yes, I know there are plenty of identical chairs in pubs and even private houses. But it's precisely because it doesn't look like Percy Dearmer out of William Morris, and every other church in the country (well, this one at least), that I thought the episcopal chair was a refreshing change.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

If it is a 1920s building - why not go in keeping, and try to dress it in the art deco style ?

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

Having a feeling that the ceiling was not workable, I was thinking Georgian as well. Count that as another vote.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

You could consider plasterboard (I think this may be what you mean by sheetrock ?) with trompe-l'œil painting to get the effect you want.

It can be very convincing.

[ 04. July 2013, 16:43: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Alternatively, with the georgian ceiling plan - could you incorporat some rooflights ? Maybe over the final position of the sanctuary ?

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

When my back was keeping me awake last night I started putting together some observations I have made when poking around looking for, or repairing things at the east end of the church.

1. The original ceiling was plywood, and panelled in 3' squares.

2. The present carpet (yuk!) hides a hardwood floor installed at the same time as the present pews. Suspect the pews are 'space age 1950s shuff' and the carpet about 1970. I suspect the place originally had 'church chairs.'

3. The sacristies at the east end are a bit of a mystery. They may be original as they contain remnants of the original cloth wrapped wiring, but the wiring looks like a Saturday afternoon and a crate of beer job so there is a chance they were recycling left overs.

3b. The sacristies are not structural. I need to take a good look at the inside the one on the north side (the store room) and see if it gives me any clues as to the original decor & layout.

4. Something was done up there in the 1960s as the sacristies have hollow core doors (yeech!) and a lot of things do not add up about the apse. The doors into the tank room (not shown in any pictures) are identical four panel doors that look late 1920s vintage! However, they would have been asymmetric when exposed. The one on the right

5. The wall between the 'apse' and the tank looks like an original internal wall through which they punched a hole to create the window through to the baptistry.

6. I am not sure when the acoustic tile went in, but it of the fiberboard with holes drilled in it variety.

I beginning to think there is a pretty strong case for hiring a dumpster (skip) and taking drastic action at the east end. I just need to see if I can reproduce the original floor plan.

PD

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
5. The wall between the 'apse' and the tank looks like an original internal wall through which they punched a hole to create the window through to the baptistry.

There are very nice-looking drop ceiling tiles that can be purchased. (For instance, this)

Baptistry? I knew you had low-church leanings, PD, but I didn't know the extent!

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Actually, Olaf, the first thing I got the junior warden to do when we moved in was drill three holes in the bottom of the baptism tank. [Devil]

At the time we had a lady in the congregation who was a big advocate of full immersion baptism. If she had found out about the tank we never would have heard the last of it. We have a nice little birdbath font in the centre aisle between the main entrance and 'the devils door.'

Low Church baptism in Anglican terms is a quick pour over the head whilst holding little Johnny or Jane over a bowl balanced on the communion rails or an old card table

PD

[ 04. July 2013, 20:39: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Now I have read the history I am pretty confident the dais was for the communion table which would have been towards the front. The CofC tend to celebrate communion weekly, have adult baptism but with a sacramental take and Reformed theology. In other words PD perhaps not as far away from you as you think. They may well have had no musical instruments so there is no space for the praise band.

What I can not recall is where they preach from, maybe Campbellite or Janine could tell you. I suspect either from a communion table or a pulpit on the left or right.

Jengie

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Now I have read the history I am pretty confident the dais was for the communion table which would have been towards the front. The CofC tend to celebrate communion weekly, have adult baptism but with a sacramental take and Reformed theology. In other words PD perhaps not as far away from you as you think. They may well have had no musical instruments so there is no space for the praise band.

What I can not recall is where they preach from, maybe Campbellite or Janine could tell you. I suspect either from a communion table or a pulpit on the left or right.

Jengie

I will preach from the pulpit which located above and behind the communion table or a movable lectern along side the communion table. Every meeting house I have been inside has the same arrangement- more or less.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

The problem I have is that the baptistry is where the central pulpit would be!

Jengie

Posted by Prester John (# 5502) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
The problem I have is that the baptistry is where the central pulpit would be!

Jengie

That is usually further behind the pulpit, behind what would be the rear wall of the santuary with an opening allowing visibility for the congregation.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

The oldest pics of the church in our files show the window through to the old baptistry. The apse was filled with one or two chairs for the elders or choir. The pulpit, the one I still use, was front and centre where the middle step now is. There were divits in the carpet at main floor level about 30" in front of the pulpit from where the CoG communion table had been. They also had the Proddy potted plants on low stands on either side of the Table.

The water for the Baptismal tank was warmed using an ancient side arm heater, which I preserved because I like interesting lumps of cast iron.

I have always been told by the locals that the church was something before it was Hillside Church of God. I have never been able to figure out what but most of the older church buildings in town have changed hands. For example, the Methodist Episcopal Church North is now the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Old photographs show it as 'First Church of God' but that is the former owner's legal name as Hillside CoG is a DBA.

PD

[ 04. July 2013, 23:12: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
I have never been able to figure out what...

This calls for a title search. Surely you have a real estate professional in the congregation onto whom you can fob this job.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
Low Church baptism in Anglican terms is a quick pour over the head whilst holding little Johnny or Jane over a bowl balanced on the communion rails or an old card table

Funny little tangent...a very old Episcopal church in this diocese (still open and restored, but the congregation has moved on) had a wealthy parishioner in the late-1800s who paid for an immersion font to be installed. It has been covered by a door--an actual wall-type of door with knob and everything--for over one hundred years. Word is that it was used once, and only once, for the baptism of the benefactor's child. Other than that feature, the church is very nosebleed in terms of 19th century America. It even has a tabernacle above the altar, which I have been told by several credible sources was fairly normal in this diocese at the time, but not so much elsewhere. The church is open for tours, and one of the most frequent questions asked is about the strange door in the floor.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I had another poke around at church this morning, and reached some conclusions on what needs to be done fairly urgently.

I had a squint under the stage and behind the scenes in the sacristies which proved interesting. The plasterboard is in place and the original coving is in position, but the joints were not finished, neither was wallpaper or paint applied. It looks as though they changed their minds late in construction on how to configure the stage area!

Interim Solution

Anyway, back to what I would like to do over the next six months.

(1) Lift that damn carpet. There is a hardwood floor underneath in good nick.
(2) Remove the soffit, curtain rail from in front of the altar. Reposition light fittings to give better light in the sanctuary area.
(2b) Continue coving around the apse to tie it into the nave visually.
(2c) I am still toying with the idea of some sort of procenium arch, but have not reached a decision.
(3) Eliminate all furniture in the sanctuary except for altar, bishop's chair, and credence table. Inevitably there will be the two standards and the flowerstands in there. Wish I could loose the flowerstands, but they are a 'fortieth Article' issue.
(4) I have removed the icons from either side of the altar, and anyhing else hung on the walls from the apse.
(5) Place the lectern and pulpit on the lower level towards the middle of each block of pews - rough a quarter, and three quarters of the way aross the building. Extend lower step our to site of communion rail to provide a raised base to the lectern, pulpit ministers seats, etc.
(6) The ministers seats are now on the lower level on the Epistle side handy for the lectern.

Problem not solved yet:

The Tabernacle. Currently on the side altar which wedged against the flat wall better the procenium and the side wall of the church on the gospel side. Perhaps some sort of a stand would be better, or even the traditional RC placement on the high altar. Not sure I want the 'Big Six' though, which I regard as part and parcel of that sort of set up.

So far I seem to have managed to reduce the number of visually distracting elements up top, but mainly by shifting them down below. Once the new altar rails are in, the pew fronts will return to being pew fronts and the front, unpadded pews will be removed.

PD

[ 06. July 2013, 00:16: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
So far I seem to have managed to reduce the number of visually distracting elements up top, but mainly by shifting them down below. Once the new altar rails are in, the pew fronts will return to being pew fronts and the front, unpadded pews will be removed.

We'll be needing photos, of course. [Smile]

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

Of course!

I am trying to remember if any of my MOTR-High colleagues have been able to do something with a similarly unpromising interior. The closest Church to ours in layout and churchmanship is St Jude's Anglican Church, Tucson, so it might be worth me revisiting what they did with their place.

PD

Posted by Quam Dilecta (# 12541) on :

The low ceiling is the most frustrating aspect of this church interior, and also the most difficult to change. You are definitely on the right track in moving the pulpit, lectern, and clergy seats so that they do not crowd the altar. The 1970's mania for separating the altar and tabernacle has run its course. In a small church, it well-nigh impossible to find a location apart from the high altar which has the requisite dignity and prominence.

The low ceiling does make it more difficult to accommodate a central tabernacle and a crucifix, but the "liturgical altars" of the 1920's and 30's offer a helpful precedent. Gradines were swept away; the tabernacle and candlesticks stood directly on the mensa. The depth of the mensa was correspondingly increased from the 21 inches or so necessary for the corporal to about 30 inches. Setting the candles at a lower level will make the ceiling appear higher. Do not worry in the slightest if the tabernacle or the candles extend in front of the wall-mounted cross. Such visual overlapping creates an illusion of greater depth, which is particularly desirable in a shallow chancel.

As for the number of candles on the altar, it is partly a matter of choosing which tradition to follow. The Counter-Reformation made six candles obligatory for altars at which the Blessed Sacrament was reserved, but earlier usage was more varied, and Sir Ninian Comper advocated using two candles at Anglican altars. If one concentrates on the visual effect, however, six tall candlesticks would provide a series of strong verticals to counteract the horizontal proportions of the apse. (Sargent's mural of the Mater Dolorosa in the Boston Public Library is a striking example of this effect.)

Because the architectural setting is undistinguished, I concur with the suggestion that you concentrate on improving the liturgical furnishings. If you do eventually have an opportunity to modify the wall and ceiling colors, I would suggest an enveloping warm medium gray or other neutral shade. White is utterly unforgiving; it makes any flaws in the setting, the furnishings, and the lighting painfully apparent. A deep neutral will make the walls and ceiling appear to recede, but it will not compete with the liturgical colors of the vestments and altar frontals.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

I remember when the (Roman Catholic) parish of my childhood finally built the permanent church. Its tabernacle was off to the liturgical north of the altar area. So not only was it weird to see Monsignor glide with his accustomed focus and dignity up the aisle to the boom-de-boom of a lousy drum set and out-of-tune guitars, but it was also weird to see him and his servers turn 45 degrees left to genuflect before turning back and mounting the steps to the altar.

Where I am now has the tabernacle front and center in the high altar under a proper marble whatsit. Big six and two angels. Genuflexions straight ahead east.

[Angel]

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
If one concentrates on the visual effect, however, six tall candlesticks would provide a series of strong verticals to counteract the horizontal proportions of the apse. (Sargent's mural of the Mater Dolorosa in the Boston Public Library is a striking example of this effect.)

There, FTFY, in the nicest possible way.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:

(2) Remove the soffit, curtain rail from in front of the altar. Reposition light fittings to give better light in the sanctuary area.

Can you get rid of that ceiling fan - it's a disaster with low ceilings. Replace it with one or more "whole house" style fans recessed into the ceiling to extract hot air to the loft space.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I take the point about needing some strong verticals. Having spent the last twenty years advocating the English Use, I am a bit reluctant to dress the church up the Big Six and all that. Therefore I am wondering if subdividing the accent wall behind the altar into three or five vertical panels would do the trick. There are usually two tall candlesticks on the altar which seems to bring a welcome vertical into the sanctuary.

PD

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
... For example, the Methodist Episcopal Church North is now the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. ...

That's quite a combination. Does it have ikons of John Knox? Are its ministers resolutely bearded? Does it forbid the celebration of Christmas irrespective of whether on the 25th December or when everyone else thinks it is the first week in January? Does it believe in the total depravity of all those who cross themselves in the wrong way?

Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :

I'm sure there is some obvious reason this is not possible, but why couldn't you deal with the low ceiling by removing it and having the exposed roof beams?

Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :

Have followed this thread with interest and am wondering if your parishioners have had a similar conversation around the need for changes?

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
... For example, the Methodist Episcopal Church North is now the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. ...
That's quite a combination. Does it have ikons of John Knox? Are its ministers resolutely bearded? Does it forbid the celebration of Christmas irrespective of whether on the 25th December or when everyone else thinks it is the first week in January? Does it believe in the total depravity of all those who cross themselves in the wrong way?

"Orthodoxy" there does not mean from the Eastern Church but a specialist Presbyterian understanding which in this case conveys a conservative reading of the historic texts (not just the Bible). They are playing "we are more Presbyterian than you" card against PCUSA. You can check them out at their website. I suppose I see them like the Free Presbyterians in Scotland without their historical heritage.

Jengie

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I'm sure there is some obvious reason this is not possible, but why couldn't you deal with the low ceiling by removing it and having the exposed roof beams?

The joists are spaced at about three feet, which would make for a series of strong horizontals along the length of the church. You would also have to knock out the sacristies, stage, and the apse, as they are non-structural.

The pissing and whining from the parishioners focuses on the carpet, the ceiling and the wallpaper. There also seems to be a dim awareness of the clutter problem at the east end because my attempts to fix it have met with favourable comment.

PD

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

The horizontals can be minimised. That is they could be painted the same colour as the actual ceiling and perhaps used for useful things such as light fittings, so as to break them up.

Jengie

Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :

PD, if I'm thinking of this right, removing the ceiling tiles and plywood would leave you with something like this correct? Or is it a truss system that would look more like this?

If it's the first then you may be able to do something with it as Jengie Jon suggested, but I suspect you'd be looking at more trouble than it's worth. You'd need to install insulation at the top against the roof decking (along with ventilation chutes between the insulation and decking). Then sheetrock/drywall/plasterboard that to give the open space. If it's trussed, don't bother. Personally, I wouldn't bother with either and would just sheetrock the flat ceiling.

Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :

One more thing. If it's like the 1st pic, then you could raise the ceiling but it would take a lot of work. The horizontal joists can be rasied up and attached to the rafters with collar ties, but how high they can be raised depends on the geometry of the roof system. A structural engineer would need to advise you on that. They can't be entirely removed as they help keep the roof's downward pressure from pushing the walls out.

Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
You could consider plasterboard (I think this may be what you mean by sheetrock ?)

Yes, plasterboard = sheetrock = drywall = wall board = gibralter board. All are gypsum between paper.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

It is very much in the first category, except that rather than tie rods there are wooden braces between the rafters and the joists about four feet in from either side. Adequate insulation would be an issue, but A-C ducts would not, as we run on window rattlers, and if we ever do go central A-C then we can run the ducts through the basement, and up the utility spacs at either end of the building.

Personally, I think it is a heck of a lot of effort for very little gain. The roof is pitched at 4:12, so with the roof space opened out full we would have about 15 in the centre, less beneath the collars if we box that lot in. I favour getting rid of the acoustic tile, and sheet rocking the lot. However, the other strong horizontals - e.g. the indirect lighting; and the soffit over the former stage - need to go, and some strong verticals introduced so the ceiling does not feel quite so 'on top of your head.'

PD

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Ceilings where you see the struts can be be pretty - what would it look like with the wood work sanded and stained, with the underside of the roof painted cream ?

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

I like Doublethink's suggestion. I know of a local A-frame church where structurally unnecessary wood thingies were added to their ceiling to give the interior a more traditional, less suburban-1950s look.

Be happy, PD, that you aren't stuck with an A-frame church. I'd sooner worship in a tent.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I tend to obsess about acoustics more than anything else. Our original building was somewhat akin to preaching in a Kleenex box. Every surface was either soft or knobbly and ate sound. Preaching in there without a mic was tough going. This building is quite 'live' and easy to preach in so I am nervous about messing that up, whilst acknowledging that it is not the mostvisually appealing of structures internally.

PD

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

More wooden surfaces would probably increase rather than decrease the acoustic properties.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

The main catch with raising the ceiling is that we would need to knock out the non-structural sacristies at the "east" end to make the room a tidy 60' by 30' rectangle. Personally, I do not have a problem with this, but it is probably going push the cost way too high.

I guess I may have to settle for just fiddling around the edges. [Frown]

I am rather enamoured of the idea of having a three sided sanctuary with plenty of space around the rails, and the sacristy where the tank used to be, but other vested interests will have their own ideas. I am already getting the vapours for fear that someone will suggest a free standing altar, and celebrating facing the people. Most of my congregation loathe "versus pop" but we do have some folks from the felt banner era.

PD

[ 12. July 2013, 18:39: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by ldjjd (# 17390) on :

Again, I think that I agree with Doublethink. I'm no expert, but aren't the acoustic properties of wood much better than those of sheetboard?

Perhaps you should wait to do anything on the ceiling until someone with a deep pocket leaves the parish a handsome bequest.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I am perfectly happy to leave the ceiling alone for the time being. My preference would be to plasterboard/sheetrock it anyway, and remove most of the 'holes in the ceiling' that we have now. We would need to put in mushroom vents to help clear hot air in summer, and some direct lighting over the pews to make evening services a bit less like 'roaming in the gloaming.'

I got the vestry to agree to the execution of the carpet this morning, and planted the idea of getting rid of the wall paper in their minds. I would love to knock out the vestries at the 'east' end but I need to be surer of my ground before I suggest anything that radical. As an interim measure I have rearranged the lighting in the sanctuary so that there is far more light on the altar and footpace than before. This will be really noticeable when we have an evening service, but even today I got a comment about it looking brighter up there.

That's all folks!

PD

Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :

With only a 15' center beam, you're smart to leave the ceiling alone. It would be more costly than it's worth to open it up. Put that money into other things. Perhaps a new (read: larger) HVAC system so you don't have to use a ceiling fan to keep cool.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I pretty much had to pass out during Communion from heat stroke to get a couple of window rattler A/C units put in! A new HVAC system will take years of wrangling. As the church has a basement I have often thought it would be nice to have a summer setting on the furnace fan, which would help keep things cool before we put the somewhat limited A/C on.

Anyway, I was looking at the shoebox the other day, when I had reached the end of my rope with another project, and took a good look at the structure. What we have is a 60' by 30' by 10' box to which has been added a 30' by 12' box containing the lavvies and the robing room, and a 24' by 5' box that had the old total immersion tank in it.

The present vestries and apse are essentially a stage set inserted into the eastern 10' of the building. They are also an after-thought as the coving and skirting boards continue around building ignoring the vestries etc.. I find the lack of structural honesty in that arrangement a bit disturbing, and I am not sure why.

I think my preference is to deal with the obvious aesthetic issues first:

(1) Get the carpet out of there.
(2) Get rid of the procenium arch.
(3) Give the wallpaper letters dimissory to the dumpster, patch the drywall if needed and paint off-white or light green.
(4) Install some better blinds (wooden venetians would be nice)

Then when I have my ducks lined up the parish could set about the major problems.

(5) Convert the old baptistry into a sacristry
(6) Knock out the vestries and apse at the east end.
(7) Get rid of the indirect lighting, and replacing it with lighting over the pews.
(8) Install a new three sided sanctuary rail up on only one step.
(9) Decent pulpit, and reading desk, wall benches for the clergy and lay readers.
(10) Skin the ceiling with drywall.

I think 1 to 4 are no brainers, but 5 to 10 might test my diplomatic skills.

PD

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

Do you use incense frequently? You really have to be careful when you clean the thurible afterwards.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

We use incense 6 to 8 times a year, and the thuribe gets a good cleaning afterwards.

PD

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

Ah well. It was worth a shot.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0