Architects: Jasmax
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Client: Manukau City Council
Team Members: David Mahon, Hamish Boyd, Jeremy Bennett, Matt Robinson & Sandeep Ram
Budget: $1.5 M
Project Completed: 2006
Photographer: Simon Devitt
The project involved the refurbishment and extension of an existing 1960’s ‘A-frame’ Church. The church space has been re-organised to increase seating capacity and a new lounge, kitchen, office and meeting rooms added.
Design intent focused around the need to open the facility up more to the community, to create a building which is transparent and inviting to the public of Waiuku.
A second simple form intersects the existing dominant A-frame structure, with significant amounts of glazing to each side.
The notion of wrapping is taken from the original Church and developed in the new works, with careful attention placed on transitions between old and new.
The facility is intended to become more than a simple Church, with the ability to operate as a theatre for performance, as a functions venue and youth and community centre.
-
- east elevation
It’s quite unfamiliar to see a church like this… And I believe that the triangular part (in the interior) is left not purposed… kind of wasted…
I feel its not that much of a church, as much as a funny object.
A place of worship should be more about dim light, light walls, almost an ethereum atmosphere, this looks like a girl shoe store.
Lou Khan said, (I read it in spanish so excuse my translation) That “man’s institutions, should keep the character for which they where created, and if this is lost, architecture loses its meaning.”
I think you can inovate without loosing character and this “church” is a great example of charater loss. 2/5
Nice project, but that drop ceiling definitely downplays the sincerity and honesty of the A-frame. It would seem that in this case, a rehab scheme that celebrated the original structure would be been more successful, but there are some nice things going on.
It looks like a style from of a basic 1970′s home ideas book, maybe they could have tried an approach for 2010 instead of a 40 year old design concept.
This is a quite interesting project, considering it’s a extension of a 60′s building. I don’t think it’s “doesn’t look” like a sacred space. Who decides what makes a “sacred space”? I think one needs to appreciate the light, the quality of space in itself.
Architectural design is today already full of prejudices, please let’s try to see beyond.
you seem to have nice nocturnal skies in NZ, but the project is boring, especially the interiors. doesn’t have the feel of a scared space.
sorry, i mean sacred (!) space
I think that the final use of the building requires the spaces to be more flexible, and that´s why the interiors don´t look like “light churches” we are mostly used to.
What a nice project, both a volume itself and interior, and finally those stained-glasses.
there is nothing boring about this!
infact the exact opposite is true.
this is a clever and incredibly sensitive response. in a world where the rhetoric of sustainability abounds a smart response like this, where the first step wasn’t with a bulldozer is highly appropriate and more than that the thing looks good. the balance between respecting and subverting the gestures of the existing form has been perfectly struck. The new splayed entrance and the expression and massing of the new work is loveley. The eccentricity of the inserted volume makes for a playful and cohesive intervention. If you were wanting to be critical [and based purely on these images] one thing that could have been done better would have been joinery and furniture selection.
If there are architects/ designers out there who think this is bad then the world is in a lot of trouble. You people need to be more critical about your comments otherwise you are perpetuating the very thing a web site like this is attempting to counter.
The comment about a lack of sacred decorum is right on the mark but for some reason that’s a goal most “modern” christian churches no longer aspire to. It is very sad and although there are exceptions [some even on this web site] they are few and far between. Apparently church is now about the people which is good for the people but not for the buildings or the architects!
I totally agree. Very clever comment! you addressed the core architectural issues beneath this project.
When I first saw the picture I thought it is an art gallery .. Not quite familiar with church design but I think the space inside is really interesting and I like the stained glass!
This doesn’t look like a church to me. A church is supposed to look and feel scared not childish and colorful like a toystore! I do not see this as a place for worship and connection to God..
I don’t understand why so many comments strike out at the “image” one should have of the church. So by that rationel all churches should look the same. I am not a catholic but I do have some conception of a higher being, so I wouldn’t say I’m quite the atheist, so personally I welcome fresh approaches to any subject. And this is one case in order. Saying that, it isn’t even the most outrageous thing I have ever seen for a church. In fact I don’t think this project is that amazing! or bad for that matter! The stained glass is a renowned “image” of prayer (think gothic stained glass, even Ronchamp). This is a friendly project, I would almost say generic, because of its weak interior. But nevertheless its a worthy piece of architecture in my view, and I am definitely not offended by it’s “toystore” approach…
I think the architect was trying to create a colorful inner space exactly like the church that was designed by Stephen Holl while he achieved a good & effective result by having colored glass and openings in his church !
I believe that the architect here has failed in achieving his result, because apparently the building doesn’t look like a church its more like an art gallery !
Using simple geometric forms and a touch of colored glass is enough to proove that the arhitecture of a building could be successful without extravagant methods of building.
Initially I was intrigued by the image of this building which certainly didn’t look like a conversion. Although I think that there is a lot to admire in this scheme I think the fundamental decusion to change the orientation of the church has robbed it of both its spiritual and architectural meaning. The A frame was a 60s interpretation of the classic gothic church form with its soaring nave, by concealing this volume with the timber ceiling and taking the altar outside the original footprint the power of that original concept has been destroyed and there isn’t really anything to replace it.
As Rachid says good for pepole, but maybe not good for architecture.
I really must object to a multitude of opinions saying that this doesn’t look like a church or doesn’t ‘look sacred’ – I hear this opinion so often from people, and unfortunately it most usually comes from those that don’t even go to church regularly, if at all. Much of the modern church tries mostly to move with the times, like any other institution – creating mysterious buildings that (maybe) attempt to ape the look or atmosphere of structures designed and built hundreds of years ago says nothing for the actual modern audience, but only speaks to the sentimentality of the people who walk past outside.
Any modern church is a very functional place that has to serve as more than a box full of pews and stained glass – they are function halls, concert spaces, worship spaces, discussion rooms and places to hear a message. They need to be light and allow themselves to be lit. They need to take a lot of wear and tear and be easy to maintain. It’s always a tall order, but a church has to be closer to an auditorium than a crypt. Christian churches are gathering places for people – lots of people – they are not temples that attempt to box God or dimly lit rooms for cryptic ceremonies.
Frustration aside, people also haven’t noticed that it’s an extension of an existing design (typical 06′s A-frame church structure). It must have been a tough brief and budget – so the result is perhaps fitting and appropriate for the customers..
there is one in my town just like this.
from about 40 or 50 years ago
magaria
this proyect was made based only in the floor plan, and its very clever. however, the spatiallity has not a meaningfull hierarchy, and thats why they dont show a cut. may be?
i think the whole building is cool!!
however, isn’t the church suppoesed to give people warm feeling instead of this kind of coolness?