I love the category, created below, of "Our Common Humanity". I hope there can be more discussion on that topic. I want to discuss the potential building project, which touches on that issue as well, but is perhaps more specific to housing and the "built environment".

I think it is important for us to have as extensive a discussion as possible about the proposed building project (see the church home page, via the link to the left).

As a start, the article below concerns overall theories of urban development, and specifically what is called "The New Urbanism", which holds that:

In order to promote community, the built environment must be diverse in population, scaled for the pedestrian, and capable of supporting mass transit as well as the automobile. It must have a well-defined public realim supported by buildings reflecting the architecture and ecology of the region

The author has his own take on how churches can add value to New Urbanism:

From one perspective churches appear to be buildings that serve the needs of a particular worshipping community. However, churches represent an informal network of people who care deeply for their community, and church buildings are community catalysts and anchor points for the entire neighborhood. For these and many other reasons, urban planners and New Urbanists have everything to gain and nothing to lose from looking to churches as partners in their community building efforts.

Can Hillhurst United be described as "an anchor point for the entire neighbourhood"?

Here's the entire article:

www.cardus.ca/columns/487/


In another article, the same author says:

With regard to economic justice issues, New Urbanist communities face a much more difficult problem. The market is very difficult to control, and attempts to mitigate the negative effects of the market on vulnerable population groups are subject to abuse and unintended consequences. However, again, this may be an area in which the Christian community has something valuable to offer. A great many non-profit institutions that work within poor neighborhoods to provide affordable housing are based on a Christian vision for justice. Habitat for Humanity is just one well known example, but I could point to numerous examples scattered throughout cities and towns. This “on the ground” experience in the complexities of affordable housing and the thick network of relationships of trust built up among these institutions are invaluable assets as municipalities and New Urbanists seek to make the goal of equitable housing a reality for residents. There is no more obvious place to turn in seeking solutions to the problem of affordable housing than to those who already have a good track record in providing affordable housing for the residents of a particular community.

and he makes a rather provocative statement:

....although I see the New Urbanist movement as encouraging a radical rethinking of the way we think about community, it has taken root within a more general political culture that may impose some limits on what it may achieve. New Urbanism in North America is implemented in a broader tradition of political liberalism which may place some limits on what it may achieve.

Political liberalism sees the only relevant political entities to be the individual and the state. In this view, most political activity has to do with balancing the rights of the individual against the power of the state. Religious communities, within this framework, are not seen as politically relevant. They are understood as voluntary organizations indistinguishable from, say, bingo halls or model train clubs. But people who are deeply committed to their religious community see it as much more significant than these kinds of voluntary associations—they often understand their church, synagogue, or mosque as being central to their lives.

Does that sound like us? Are we firmly enough rooted in the community and its people to be central to many people's lives?

Here's the whole article.

http://www.cardus.ca/comment/article/947



Yes, there are concerns like parking, financing and building codes to discuss, and these are important issues. But how are we working with existing groups in the neighbourhood such as Brenda Strafford foundation and the groups making proposals for the St. John's church site? In 50 years, how will our building plans affect the neighbourhood that exists around Kensington Close?