Finishing Pilgrim Congregational Church

flwromanza · Post by **flwromanza** » Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:31 pm

I am posting this new thread with an important request to all those that will read it.
As many of you know, Mr Wright designed the Pilgrim Congregational Church for a tiny Redding congregation in 1959, completing final drawings shortly before his death. The original plan was for a spectacular building, but with little funds, the congregation could only afford to build the smallest wing of the church, which they did themselves, with all of the church members, including the women and children, pitching in to complete the building. Ever since that single wing was completed, which was sometime in the early mid- sixties, it has served as the only building the church has ever known. The original church membership always intended to complete the church in the coming years, but as so often happens with religious organizations, there has always been a shortage of funds.
Finally, sometime in the 1990s, a fund was established to collect money which would go towards the completion of the building. As publicity for the fund has rarely reached outside the Redding area, only 20,000.00 to 30,000.00 has been raised over the years. Visionary members have made sure that the original land on which the completed structure was to stand has never left possession of the congregation, insuring that the project could always go forward.
Now, unfortunately, 60 years after the fact, there are fewer and fewer original congregation members still alive, and a new faction within the church, supported by a series of unsympathetic ministers, have dismissed the idea of completing Mr. Wright's original vision, and actively thwart efforts by those who are still trying to make the dream come true.
I believe that the new congregation members don't fully understand the historical significance of the building, nor realize the level of interest those outside Redding have in seeing that the original church get built. They also underestimate the positive effect that completing the building would have on the local economy, which would reap tremendous benefits from the increased numbers of tourists who would make Redding a travel destination.
While the financial aspects of the project are critical, they are secondary to the first task of convincing non-believers that finishing the church is the correct path to take. I believe that a good first step would be for those supporting the idea of building Mr. Wright's original grand design contact the church and let their feelings be known, and encourage like minded associates to do the same. It is my intention to eventually go up and speak to the congregation, making a personal plea for cooperation.
If you do wish to write, please communicate your most genuine feelings about why this structure should be built. I don't want a phony write-in campaign, but true Frank Lloyd Wright, art, architecture and design devotees, who understand the enormous value of a good building, letting their feelings be known. Do what you can. Thanks so much.

Handwritten letters sent to:

Mr. John Crowe, moderator
Pilgrim Congregational Church
P.O. Box 993183
Redding, Ca. 96099-3183

Emails sent to:

[email protected]

DRN · Post by **DRN** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:50 am

flwromanza wrote:

While the financial aspects of the project are critical, they are secondary to the first task of convincing non-believers that finishing the church is the correct path to take.

To we Chatters and other Wright enthusiasts, building the rest of the "opus", as Wright would have called it, may be the correct path to take, but it may not be the case for the church as a community and an organization. Speaking as a member of a church property committee, building/property maintenance is a financial and parliamentary struggle for most churches. Maintaining the partial Wright building the church already has is likely more expensive and time consuming than what most similar organizations undertake. There could be concern in the congregation that a significantly larger building of the same ilk will entail an even larger percentage of the church's revenue being spent on the physical plant with less going to benevolence. From what I understand, Beth Shalom has been faced with this condition at times. Another issue: is the church currently growing, steady, or declining in membership?

I think the notion of Wright scholars educating the newer members of the church about its unique place in the history of an American architecture is a great idea. But I might suggest that we may be seen by the congregation as outsiders "with an agenda", and should not in any way propose to the congregation how it should grow if it is to grow at all. I fear that we could alienate them by making them feel as if they are being urged by outsiders to make a large commitment to something the outsiders want, but that the outsiders are not likely to help the congregation to sustain. If there is interest among the church members to pursue completion of the "opus", I think we should encourage it and assist where possible, but I strongly believe this should be their decision alone.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:07 am

I think the only way to get the building completed would be to campaign outside the membership of the church for funds to build the building as an architectural monument as a gift to the congregation who might then shoulder the responsibility of sustaining it. The church would need to come to some sort broad agreement and inclusion in their mission statement about the care of the building. It would have to become a stronger part of their identity. That's a tight rope to walk given what Christ said about the stones of the temple as they relate to Empire not one being left upon the other. However, personally, I think it's not an impossible case to make.

But one thing does seem clear to me about this. And it doesn't seem all that crazy. But the only chance to have the building completed would be due to outside funding by interested architectural circles. There would need to be a global campaign and a strong alliance formed between that campaign and the church. The UCC is a congregationally based form of government, so not sure what help they could get from their national association. But I'd be willing to contribute to the project.

flwromanza · Post by **flwromanza** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:06 pm

Thanks for the responses. Good thoughts. I am just on my way out the door for a 3 day drive to Toronto, and will respond when I get settled there.

Reidy · Post by **Reidy** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:35 pm

What Tom suggests is what Unity Temple has been doing for years, with UT Restoration Foundation a separate organization. They have a more famous building, though, and they aren't trying to build anything for the first time, so the parallel may not apply.

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:04 pm

The structure of a church has a huge impact on the success of the congregation to survive. Much of the success of any religious organization depends on how large and fancy the building is. It is not by accident that villages all over Europe are dominated by massive stone cathedrals that go far beyond the actual needs of the congregations they serve. So putting a lot of money into a building in no way would interfere with the solvency of the congregation. Would the Vatican get rid of St. Peter's to balance the books? Like it or not, the "show" plays a big part in the success of the "business" of religion.

Redding is a bit off the beaten path, but then so was Bilbao. Wright enthusiasts don't go out of their way to visit Redding, because they believe the payoff isn't sufficient for the effort. But completed, the church could bring in a lot more people, so the effort to finish the project should be supported by the entire community.

If sufficient funds could be acquired to go forward, the big problem the congregation would have is staying true to the original scheme so people like us wouldn't carp about how a fine work of art has been compromised. The first task would be to take a trip to Petra Island to the Chahroudi/Massaro House to see what not to do, then employ a FLW apprentice from the area who would be able to translate the original building into something that would pass today's code without violating the aesthetic. Arthur Dyson comes to mind.

It's sure to be the money that has the preacher and congregants against the idea, so solving that problem is about all that's needed. A bigger, more spectacular church is always a boon.

DavidC · Post by **DavidC** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 1:20 pm

Arthur Dyson's website

David

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:36 pm

Wright's church as designed . . .

as built (the upper portion of the plan)

photos by Scot Zimmerman

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Fri Jul 06, 2012 5:34 pm

RG has the realistic strategy.
The siting is similar to his Unitarian Fellowship in Madison.

Post by **pmahoney** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 6:28 am

Tony Puttnam told me he supervised construction of the PCC when it was originally constructed. Tony is still practicing and could potentially provide a link to Wright's intent if construction were to resume.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:58 am

In the last photo the glass in those triangles seems out of place. Reminds me of the Fish church in Albany New York by Harrison and Abramovich (sp?) My guess is that it's not originally specified. I would think that some amount of clear would have been called for so continuity of the "exoskeleton" supports could be seen.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:34 am

Good reference -- though you've perhaps recalled the location incorrectly. Google "fish church stamford" for lots of images; the church is in Stamford, Connecticut.

Your point about the transparency of the glass is right on. I wonder what sort of glass a "Pole and Boulder Gothic" edifice should sport ?

SDR

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:44 am

Yeah, Stamford is the one I meant.

Also I really like how one enters and passes through under the bell tower in this Pilgrim Church by Wright.

Jeff Myers · Post by **Jeff Myers** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:53 pm

We just need dedicated people to fund and build this wonderful design.

flwromanza · Post by **flwromanza** » Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:11 pm

Thanks for all of the great suggestions on how to get the church built, but just to remind you, that's not our current task. I have very precise plans on how to accomplish that particular work when the time comes.
To reiterate, what we need now is to simply communicate to the church's congregation that finishing the original design is a good idea. What I would really like from you is the write-in campaign of why you would like to see the church built. As has already been pointed out, we need not to come across as outsiders whose tone is to demand that the church be completed on our terms, but rather a low key approach that we think it is the best and most appropriate course of action, and that we support such an effort. Remember, there are still members within the church that want the project completed, but they are currently in the minority, and it would be our job to help convince a sufficient number of the larger congregation to join the "pro-building" side. It is first necessary to accomplish this task before the larger steps of actually getting the structure built are taken.
So please, in addition to all of your other efforts, make sure to include some type of correspondence to the church, and encourage like-minded colleagues to do the same. Thanks again.

Wright Chat

Finishing Pilgrim Congregational Church

Finishing Pilgrim Congregational Church

supervising apprentice