applewuud
Active Member
A question for UUs--
In New England, many of the Unitarian/Universalist congregations or fellowships or societies are located in church buildings hundreds of years old. Some are huge stone historical monuments, like King's Chapel and Arlington Street Church in Boston, or colonial clapboard churches like First Church Cambridge. Some of these old churches feature the dark interiors and colored glass of the Victorian era; some of them are light and airy with clear, looking out onto nature. In any case, they were designed for the society of their time, and for the Unitarians or Universalists of their time.
In other parts of the country, the architecture of UU groups is more modern, with more or less success. Some have large walls of clear glass and unique textures; one or two were designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, some are modern but with no windows at all, like a theatre. Some of these modern buildings, because they were groundbreaking, have unique maintenance problems of their own; but in many cases they draw people with the drama of their sanctuary and the effective layout of their facilities: kitchens for community meals, schoolrooms for day care and religious education.
Some have suggested that our early success in American society 150 years ago has trapped us: we have to maintain these old churches like museums that don't really represent who we are. Our theology and ideas are very different from other churches, yet our buildings make us look almost the same as a UCC, Baptist, or Methodist church.
From an environmental standpoint, it's almost impossible to insulate these buildings to modern standards. They have inadequate facilities for people with disabilities. They don't have modern sound or projection systems. They're often in locations without adequate parking. They can be a real hassle to maintain. In New England, there are too many of them, frankly...every few miles are small congregations struggling to keep their doors open. If we were Catholics, the bishop would come in and close 2/3rds of the churches and get the congregations to consolidate.
Yet, they have a lot of sentimental meaning to many people, and are in the heart of many towns, both literally and in history. They're paid for, they have a momentum of their own. They show that UUs aren't a group of upstarts; we have a long and significant history
So, the poll is meant to prompt a conversation: are our buildings a help or a burden? Should we go through the effort of rebuilding for a new era? Do buildings matter at all? What would the ideal UU building be? What is your reaction to the church buildings you've been in, focusing mostly on UU buildings?
Any stories you have about being in a group that built or remodeled its building would be appreciated, or your reaction to the architecture of non-UU churches, synagogues, or mosques.
In New England, many of the Unitarian/Universalist congregations or fellowships or societies are located in church buildings hundreds of years old. Some are huge stone historical monuments, like King's Chapel and Arlington Street Church in Boston, or colonial clapboard churches like First Church Cambridge. Some of these old churches feature the dark interiors and colored glass of the Victorian era; some of them are light and airy with clear, looking out onto nature. In any case, they were designed for the society of their time, and for the Unitarians or Universalists of their time.
In other parts of the country, the architecture of UU groups is more modern, with more or less success. Some have large walls of clear glass and unique textures; one or two were designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, some are modern but with no windows at all, like a theatre. Some of these modern buildings, because they were groundbreaking, have unique maintenance problems of their own; but in many cases they draw people with the drama of their sanctuary and the effective layout of their facilities: kitchens for community meals, schoolrooms for day care and religious education.
Some have suggested that our early success in American society 150 years ago has trapped us: we have to maintain these old churches like museums that don't really represent who we are. Our theology and ideas are very different from other churches, yet our buildings make us look almost the same as a UCC, Baptist, or Methodist church.
From an environmental standpoint, it's almost impossible to insulate these buildings to modern standards. They have inadequate facilities for people with disabilities. They don't have modern sound or projection systems. They're often in locations without adequate parking. They can be a real hassle to maintain. In New England, there are too many of them, frankly...every few miles are small congregations struggling to keep their doors open. If we were Catholics, the bishop would come in and close 2/3rds of the churches and get the congregations to consolidate.
Yet, they have a lot of sentimental meaning to many people, and are in the heart of many towns, both literally and in history. They're paid for, they have a momentum of their own. They show that UUs aren't a group of upstarts; we have a long and significant history
So, the poll is meant to prompt a conversation: are our buildings a help or a burden? Should we go through the effort of rebuilding for a new era? Do buildings matter at all? What would the ideal UU building be? What is your reaction to the church buildings you've been in, focusing mostly on UU buildings?
Any stories you have about being in a group that built or remodeled its building would be appreciated, or your reaction to the architecture of non-UU churches, synagogues, or mosques.
Last edited:
