Comments on: Waiuku Church / Jasmax

By: yuji haniyuda

yuji haniyuda — Wed, 04 May 2011 17:51:29 +0000

Waiuku Church / Jasmax | ArchDaily http://t.co/PaVNg2v via @archdaily

By: mybirthdayis925

mybirthdayis925 — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 03:18:17 +0000

i think the whole building is cool!!
however, isn’t the church suppoesed to give people warm feeling instead of this kind of coolness?

By: mr gaga

mr gaga — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:58:26 +0000

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?

By: TIFLISI

TIFLISI — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:29:54 +0000

magaria

By: Formula

Formula — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:51:09 +0000

there is one in my town just like this.

from about 40 or 50 years ago

By: Chris

Chris — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:38:21 +0000

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..

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:42:00 +0000

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.

By: Bana Alkahteeb

Bana Alkahteeb — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:58:39 +0000

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.

By: Mariam

Mariam — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:29:36 +0000

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 !

By: Miguel

Miguel — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:32:40 +0000

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…

By: Aya

Aya — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:00:12 +0000

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..

By: Mattia

Mattia — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:27:49 +0000

I totally agree. Very clever comment! you addressed the core architectural issues beneath this project.

By: Halima Rashid

Halima Rashid — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:49:59 +0000

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!

By: Mattia

Mattia — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:56:05 +0000

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.

By: rachid

rachid — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:34:14 +0000

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!

By: Kranaz

Kranaz — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:24:23 +0000

What a nice project, both a volume itself and interior, and finally those stained-glasses.

By: David Basulto

David Basulto — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:06:35 +0000

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.

By: mima

mima — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:23:53 +0000

sorry, i mean sacred (!) space

By: mima

mima — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:23:00 +0000

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.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:10:00 +0000

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.