"Challenging Architectural Conventions" = Doing exactly what every Modernist has been doing for the past 75 years. luxe.outlookindia.com/amp/st…

Evangelicalism.

After VDOT (The Venice Department of Transportation) is done making the City "more accessible", Imagine how the VFD (Venice Fire Department) can widen the canals to "make it safer"!

McDonald's announced they're investing $8,500,000,000 in their restaurants to try and make a comeback. This includes implementing a lot more AI to automate tasks and new, healthy menu items like grilled chicken, egg bites and protein bowls.

Does the public prefer traditional architecture? Half a century of surveys find: worksinprogress.co/issue/do-… - Between 60 and 95 percent prefer traditional architecture; - This pattern holds across gender, class, race, nationality and political views; - More traditional densification schemes seem to attract remarkably high levels of survey support; - Laypeople and design professionals respond dramatically differently, with professionals far more favourable to modern styles. Research is still at an early stage, and many questions remain. Personally, I am particularly interested in how the public would respond to a non-traditional but richer and more decorative style? I think they might like it, but we don’t have hard evidence yet. But the results are already puzzling. Why do people end up buying buildings that are so different to the buildings they say they prefer? How did we end up in this odd situation? What can we do about it? Read more in @RobertKwolek's definitive review of architectural visual preference surveying.

Dmitriy is already hitting it out of the park here, but a couple additions from me: A. Building cheap doesn't mean building ugly. You can take the same budget these ugly churches had and build something much more beautiful. B. There's a lot of workable space for symbolism between St Paul's Cathedral and strip mall aesthetics. D. Great architecture makes worshippers feel humble H. There is something to be said for committing a space to a specific religious purpose. Flexibility is not an inherent spiritual virtue.

Ok, great, a quick note is that the churches you’ve referenced are Protestant, free churches. That is important. At a high level, almost all of these churches would point out that none of the earliest Christian churches had ornate facilities for the first 300 years. For my part it’s really 9(ish) issues: A. Stewardship and charity - these facilities are better stewards of resources than ornate churches. Most of these churches invest dollars and send members out in higher percentages than liturgical churches. B. Avoidance of idolatry - goes back to the Reformation rejection of statuary and iconography. Facilities should be well kept but not overbearing. C. Focus on the Gospel - almost all of these churches are non-sacramentalists. They focus on the kerygmatic purpose of worship. D. Rejection of pride - the purpose of a church building is to facilitate earnest worship of God, not of mankind’s handiwork. This has been a key issue since before the Reformation. E. Definition of “church” - eccelsiologically, Jesus removed us from the Temple and put the temple into us. We don’t go to a building to worship but can gather with believers anywhere. The building is ancillary to true worship. F. Ministry for all ages - the buildings you referenced have quality spaces for children, teens, and adults, some gathering separately for discipleship and some gathered together. G. Easier access for new guests - missiologically important as we remove barriers for access and engagement for new guests with simple and streamlined facilities. H. Flexibility of spaces - as non-sacerdotalists, these spaces can be used flexibly without sacramental harm to serve the needs of the congregational and community. (Missiological) I. Higher quality worship engagement - I would argue a final point that for modern worship styles, these spaces are better suited for worship and engagement than more liturgical spaces. I can keep going but let’s pause and see how we can dialogue. Certainly plenty of pathways to run down. This is an important issue and one we need to discuss