Re: Assembly: Reuse of a Church

A New Assembly belongs to an earlier period in the evolution of the practice, preceding the study of Classical Architecture and Traditional Urbanism that would later reshape its architectural and urban position.

The project emerges from a distinctly contemporary approach, where adaptive reuse, programmatic flexibility, contrast between old and new, and the activation of underused space become the principal instruments of design. Rather than seeking continuity through an inherited architectural language, the intervention establishes a deliberate dialogue between the existing church and a new contemporary layer.

The historic structure is preserved as a spatial and material framework, while new programs and additions are introduced through an architecture that clearly belongs to another moment.

This distinction is fundamental to understanding the project within the broader evolution of the practice.

The project therefore operates simultaneously at three scales:

Nave → Collective Life

The former worship space becomes a flexible center for ideas, events, and community.

Basement → Work

Existing underused space becomes a multi-tenant professional ecosystem.

Site → Living

New compact housing introduces an affordable residential component and creates continuous occupation of the property.

Together, these programs establish a model in which preservation is connected to economic and social activation.

New construction supports existing architecture.

Private uses help sustain collective spaces.

Housing introduces permanent activity.

Adaptive reuse becomes the catalyst for the transformation of the entire site.

Architecture is not a fixed position.

It is a discipline shaped by observation, experience, study, questioning, and the continuous reassessment of what we believe architecture should contribute to society and the city.

A New Assembly represents a specific moment within that process—an exploration of adaptive reuse, contemporary intervention, flexibility, and programmatic transformation.

Later investigations into Classical Architecture and Traditional Urbanism would introduce new principles, references, and ways of understanding the relationship between architecture, culture, and the city.

This evolution does not invalidate the work that came before it.

It gives it context.

Each project becomes part of a larger process of learning in which previous ideas are tested, questioned, retained, transformed, or replaced.

To evolve is not to deny where we began, but to understand it well enough to move beyond it.

A practice that does not question itself remains static.

Architecture, like the cities and cultures it serves, must remain capable of learning and transformation.

The questions remain. The knowledge expands. The architecture evolves.

This project belongs to an earlier period in the evolution of the practice, preceding the study of Classical Architecture and Traditional Urbanism that would later reshape its architectural and urban position.