Page 15 - Historic Churches 2013

BCD Special Report on

Historic Churches

20th annual edition

15

CATHEDRAL

C O M M U N I C A T I O N S

Architectural

COMPETITIONS

Malcolm Reading

S

urprisingly few

church

developments are commissioned through

competitions. Why is this? Almost

all other key civic buildings, such as town

halls, schools, hospitals and social housing,

have a tradition of being commissioned

through competition. Indeed the careers of

many emerging architects are launched by

entering a competition for a civic building.

There are of course, exceptions. Liverpool

Cathedral was the product of a competition run

in 1902, which Sir Giles Gilbert Scott won at the

age of 21 – the original emerging architect. So

too was Sir Basil Spence’s winning scheme for

the new cathedral in Coventry arising around

the devastated ruins of the building destroyed

during the second world war. There are some

notable modest developments too, such as

the new ‘Cellarium’ restaurant at Westminster

Abbey, by architects Panter Hudspith.

Churches are unusual in having their own

planning procedures and either an inspecting

architect or, in the case of the most important,

a surveyor of the fabric. Great committee

structures surround even modest building

work including diocese committees and

fabric committees. The Catholic and Anglican

churches have subtly different ways to engage

with new design work and permissions.

England and Wales’ planning procedures

differ from Scotland’s. And enfolding all of this

are the mechanics and regulations of listed

buildings and ecclesiastical exemption.

This article will try to set a route through

this apparent morass, demonstrating how best to

map out a church’s need – no matter how great

or small – translating this into a comprehensible

brief and selecting the right architectural team

to deliver a new facility, church extension or new

sacred building. A design competition, it will be

argued, is an excellent way to attract new talent

and achieve exemplary results, and is good value.

Let’s assume that you have identified a

statement of need and prepared a brief (of

which more later), and are looking for an

architect. There are three ways of doing this.

The first is to work with someone you know,

perhaps a practice that has been working on

the church for some time, or is known for work

in the region. This isn’t a bad way to find an

architect and many highly successful schemes

have been commissioned in this way. The

benefits are familiarity and dependability, and

for many straightforward projects this approach

has served client and architect well over the

years. The deficiency might be a lack of fresh

ideas and a narrowing of perspective; familiarity

is not the best way to foster innovation.

The second and probably most popular

in an ecclesiastical context, is to ask the

church authority (the diocese in the case of an

Anglican church) who has done good work

elsewhere, and which practice might have the

right set of skills? This type of request might

result in a small competitive interview of a

few firms, the benefit being that these firms

are all likely to have background experience

in church design, conservation issues and

seeking permissions. The mix of skills and

knowledge in these firms is likely to be good

for many standard projects, but the selection

may lack the magic needed for a really

different approach to reuse or regeneration.

The third and by far the most interesting

selection process is to run a competition. This

can be arranged in a number of ways to engage

with emerging talent and smaller practices who

are keen to optimise your brief and budget.

We find this approach can motivate client and

architect to produce something of rare quality

and long-lasting value, often outstripping the

expectations set out in the client’s brief.

Of course, this is not to say that the

first two methods of finding an architect

are out-dated, but the competition process

has unique attributes for those wishing to

innovate and bring ideas from outside.

It is valuable at this stage to look at things

from the architect’s perspective. Many architects

win their first jobs through a competition; some

certainly make their name this way. However,

entering competitions has a big impact on a

small office and clients should recognise this.

There can be only one winner; the runners-up

still have to pay their staff and rent. For this

reason, it is customary to offer a small payment

(or honorarium) to the unsuccessful practices.

Let’s look at how a competition might be

approached for an ecclesiastical building or

extension.

PRELIMINARYWORK

The starting point for any alteration of an

existing building is to define what must be done,

taking into consideration the significance of

the building itself. Two statements are required

for the permission or ‘faculty’, one outlining

the significance of the building and the other

outlining the need for the work, and these must

be prepared before a competition can begin.

Many churches already have a statement

of significance (or ‘significance assessment’).

This document briefly summarises the

importance of the building and helps to identify

where changes can/can’t be made. If you

don’t have one, this should be commissioned

from a conservation architect or heritage

consultant. The outcome is a useful resource

for the future, as well as contributing to

any immediate development ideas.

A competition jury in action (Photo: Kirsty Anderson)