Making Homes for Arts in Sacred Places

Prepared By:

Thaddeus A. Squire

Founder and Managing Director

CultureWorks Greater Philadelphia

T: 267 597 3803

[email protected]

Marcel Williams Foster

Manager of Operations and Coworking


T: 267 597 3809

[email protected]

In collaboration with:

David Bradley (Principal Consultant, CultureWorks); Sarah Kelly (Intern, CultureWorks); Shawn Evans, AIA, Associate, Atkin Olshin

Schade Architects (Senior Consultant, CultureWorks) Vanessa dela Torre & Rie Yamakawa, University of Pennsylvania (Project

Interns, CultureWorks)

This study was commissioned by Partners for Sacred Places from CultureWorks Greater Philadelphia, with the generous

support of the Barra Foundation.

Photo by Kim Senior. The Church of the Holy Trinity, Rittenhouse Square, hosts an exhibition and sale featuring 50 accomplished visual artists from the Greater Philadelphia region in May 2009.

Making Homes for the Arts in Sacred Places

Visual and Performing Arts in Sacred Places | 2

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 3

II. Background ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 5

III. Hypotheses ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 6

IV. Goals ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 7

V. Methodology –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 8

i. Assessment Participants .................................................................................. 8

ii. Selection Process and Criteria ......................................................................10

iii. Data Protocol ....................................................................................................10

iv. Collecting Methods ......................................................................................... 11

VI. Key Findings ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––11 Sacred Places i. Physical and Technical Capacity .................................................................. 11

ii. Organizational Capacity ................................................................................... 14

iii. Receptivity Capacity ........................................................................................ 14

Arts Organizations iv. Physical and Technical Capacity .................................................................. 15

v. Organizational Capacity ................................................................................... 16

vi. Receptivity Capacity ........................................................................................ 16

VII. Other Participant Input ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 17

i. Visual Arts Organizations and Individual Visual Artists ............................. 17

ii. Emerging Dance and Theatre Organizations ............................................... 18

iii. Cultural Service Organizations ...................................................................... 19

VIII. Matching Assets and Deficits ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 19

IX. Recommendations ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––21

i. Create a Training Program and Membership Database ........................... 21

ii. Develop a Shared Management Solution ..................................................... 23

iii. Develop a Rental Subvention Program ......................................................... 23

iv. Develop a Capital Re-Granting System ......................................................... 24

X. Appendix –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 24

i. Next Steps .......................................................................................................... 24

ii. Tables .................................................................................................................. 26

iii. Graphs ................................................................................................................ 28

iv. Biographies ........................................................................................................ 32

v. References ......................................................................................................... 33

Note to this Report

The following report is a condensed version of a more comprehensive report submitted to Partners for Sacred Places

(PFSP). This abridged report excludes confidential participant data that was not intended for public distribution.

This participant data was, however, reported to PFSP as part of the total data set for this research project and will

remain held in confidence by both CultureWorks Greater Philadelphia and PFSP.


I. Executive Summary

Between July 2010 and February 2011, Partners for Sacred Places (Partners) undertook a pilot study of the working relationships

between the cultural and the faith-based communities in Philadelphia, focusing on their respective space needs and assets. The

study was designed around a sample (not a comprehensive survey) of sacred places across a number of denominations and smaller

arts organizations across the disciplines of theatre, dance, music, and visual arts, with both cohorts operating and/or located

in Center City Philadelphia. The purpose of the study was to determine ways to foster collaborations and partnerships

focused on space availability and usability as well as stakeholders, who are defined as audiences for the arts organizations and

community supporters for the sacred places.

The study was designed around three core areas of investigation, with the intention of developing a “Readiness Index” tool

as Partners begins to build a program in response to the recommendations of the study. The three areas were Physical &

Technical Capacity (space and technical needs and assets), Organizational Capacity (financial, staff, and leadership health), and

Receptivity Capacity (degree of philosophical and attitudinal receptivity to partnership or collaboration). Among the findings

of the study were the following overarching discoveries:

! There is significant interest among both leadership of sacred places and arts organizations in partnering with each other,

both occasionally and in longer-term relationships.

! The primary motive for both arts and faith leaders to partner and connect space and other assets is the development

of stakeholders (audience/community supporters) and not the mitigation of financial burdens (cost savings/revenue

generation).

! There is substantial physical space available for arts use in most of the sacred places studied, some that would have to be

shared and some that could be dedicated 100% to arts uses.

! There is a pronounced lack of the technical outfitting, staff, and financial capacity that would be required to realize

more use of space and other dimensions of partnership among both sacred places and arts organizations.

! There are many knowledge and sensitivity barriers to fostering deeper partnership: lack of reciprocal understanding

of operating models, core values, terminology, etc.

In examining the data across the three main areas of study, alignment of findings

revealed points where data converged in complementary ways (a surplus asset of

one group, such as space, can be used to address a deficit for another) or convergent

ways (in which a deficit or asset is shared by both groups, suggesting the need for

investment or other action). The following summary of parallel findings from the

study points to opportunities for three kinds of investment:

! Human Systems – Shared staff and personnel forces to facilitate

and operate partnerships.

! Knowledge/Data Systems – Knowledge about assets and capacities

among potential partners.

! Physical & Technical Resources – Small capital investment in

technical physical improvements.

Photo by Jason Chen. Les Rivera performs his solo dance-theater piece Platypus at Broad Street Ministry in February 2011, as part of the Last Mondays Performance Series hosted by Hybridge Arts Collective.


Physical & Technical Capacity

Arts Organizations Sacred Places

There is an acute need for space for a diversity of uses. There is substantial space available for a diversity of uses.

Arts organizations own little to no technical outfitting. Sacred places own little to no technical outfitting.

There is little data on space needs across disciplines. There is little data on available sacred spaces.

Organizational Capacity


Staff resources to develop partnerships are limited. Staff resources to develop partnerships are limited.

Operating margins are thin, often with debt/deficit. Operating margins are thin, often with debt/deficit.

There is a great need to develop audiences. There is a great need to develop community stakeholders.

Receptivity Capacity


There is great receptivity/drive to find a home base. There is great receptivity/drive to find arts partners.

There is little understanding of how sacred places operate. There is little understanding of how arts orgs operate.

There is leadership energy and drive to form partnerships. There is leadership energy and drive to form partnerships.

LEGEND: Green = Human Systems Investment Gray = Physical & Technical Investment Blue = Knowledge/Data Systems Investment

These three investment opportunities inform the following key implementation recommendations:

(1) Create a Training Program & Membership Database/Structure: Addressing the opportunities and needs identified

around Knowledge/Data Systems Investment, we recommend that Partners develop training programs to improve

knowledge of partnership best practices and the unique issues that are key to developing relationships between arts

organizations and sacred places. Accompanying turn-key tools might include lease templates, house management

policies/protocols, a database of spaces and technical resources, etc.

(2) Develop a Shared Management Solution: Addressing the Human Systems Investment needs, we recommend that

Partners develop a management solution that can be shared with a “portfolio” of member sacred places and arts

organizations as part of Partners’ staff and office infrastructure.

(3) Develop a Rental Subvention Program: Modeled on the rental subvention program currently operated by Dance

USA Philadelphia, we recommend that Partners consider offering (themselves or in partnership with peer service

organizations) rental subsidies to arts organizations for the use of sacred spaces in the city. This is in response to the

lack of financial capacity among both arts organizations and sacred places.

(4) Develop a Capital Re-granting Program: Following in Partners’ re-granting work through its existing program New

Dollars/New Partners for Your Sacred Place, we recommend that Partners expand its current re-granting programs to

address the physical and technical deficits identified under the “Catalytic Capital Investment” section.


II. Background

Partners for Sacred Places has been working with the sacred community in Greater Philadelphia and nationwide for more

than 20 years, providing essential training and community development and support services to place-based congregations.

Their New Dollars/New Partners for Your Sacred Place program has become established as a national model for developing the

resources, both human and capital, of sacred spaces. Based on the success of New Dollars, Partners wishes to develop further

programs that respond to its community needs and are operationally sustainable.

Recognizing the close affinity between the facility needs of the performing arts and the functions for which most sacred

spaces are built—i.e., spaces for performance in the form of rite and ritual as well as ancillary spaces designed for community

gatherings and education—Partners decided to undertake a study of the relationship dynamics between the arts community

and faith-based communities that own facilities in Philadelphia. In July 2010, Partners commissioned CultureWorks Greater

Philadelphia to design and implement a study aimed at answering such fundamental questions as: What is the current degree

of use and relationship between performing arts and sacred space? How much space-based resource is there within the faith-

based community? How much interest do congregations and arts organizations have in developing new partnerships with

each other? What are the barriers—cultural, attitudinal, organizational, and physical—to productive partnerships? How can

Partners develop programs and support that will foster more partnerships and general relationships of mutual benefit between

arts organizations and sacred places?

Partners’ initial impulse was to focus on the performing arts (dance, music, and theatre), but CultureWorks suggested that

the scope be broadened to look at the visual arts community as well. The visual arts community (which includes media such

as film, painting, photography, video, and sculpture) is often omitted from studies focusing on the performing arts, but

Partners was interested in determining whether there is under-leveraged partnership potential as well between the visual arts

community and sacred places. Thus the scope of the study was amended and the title changed to “Visual and Performing Arts

in Sacred Places.”

We investigated three areas of organizational capacity that would inform the structure of our study. These areas encompassed

the broad spectrum of data needed to address the questions above and establish the basis for developing a “Readiness Index” to

gauge partnership and collaborative preparedness on both sides (arts organizations and sacred places):

(1) Physical & Technical Capacity – physical needs/capacities from the standpoint of space and facilities, as well as

technical and equipment outfitting required for cultural use.

(2) Organizational Capacity – the overall financial and operating capacity and health of organizations, focusing on

human resources, finances, and leadership energy and drive.

(3) Receptivity Capacity – the degree of receptivity to cultural use (from the standpoint of faith communities) and to

sacred space use (from the standpoint of arts organizations).

The study was designed as a pilot study and thus is not a comprehensive data survey of all sacred places or arts organizations

in Philadelphia. A sampling of Center City sacred places and arts organizations formed the core cohort of study subjects. Work

began in August 2010 and was completed in February 2011.


III. Hypotheses

Sacred Places, Needs and Capacities: In 1997 Partners released

a groundbreaking national study, Sacred Places at Risk,

examining the value and use of sacred places to their surround-

ing communities. The study found that 81% of use of any given

sacred space over the course of a year was by people who were

not members of that congregation. In other words, most use of

sacred space is by its community (however that is defined) and

for secular purposes, not by its congregation per se. This

study strongly suggests—and Partners’ ongoing work through

New Dollars evidences—that a city like Philadelphia is rich

with sacred architecture and congregations willing and able to

develop partnership-based relationships as an essential part

of their community stewardship.

Moreover, there is a growing need to garner support (in the

form of people, money, relationships, etc.) from non-faith-

based relationships for historic denominations in the United

States. Owing to an increasingly secularized culture and

the rise of media/internet-based approaches to support faith

communities, congregation sizes for traditional denominations

continue to dwindle.

Hypothesis I: Among the traditional faith denominations

and their places of worship in Philadelphia, there is a great

potential and desire to welcome secular partners such

as artists and arts organizations into their facilities and

communities. We predicted that (1) many sacred places

already host a number of arts tenants, (2) the need for

capital investment as a prerequisite for more extensive use

may be lower among sacred places (than other types of

architecture and approaches to building re-use), (3) there

would be a need and desire for new streams of income, and

finally, (4) interest in welcoming arts groups into sacred

places may be strong, but that there may also be issues and

barriers concerning artistic content and subject matter.

Arts Organizations, Needs and Capacities: Individual

artists and smaller fine and performing arts organizations

in Philadelphia have frequently expressed the need for

affordable, accessible space to support the various aspects

of their operations: rehearsal, performance, fabrication,

administration, education, and storage.

Philadelphia’s growing arts community—in particular new

and smaller companies and practices operating below

$1 million in budget—has especially acute needs for space,

and new solutions are required to address the challenges

and growth Philadelphia currently faces. In 2001, the Non-

profit Finance Fund and AEA Consulting generated a report

funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the William Penn

Foundation that concluded that the dance community does not

have the paying audience or organizational capacity to sustain

a theater devoted to Philadelphia-based dance presentations

(Burd and Hill, 2003). The study suggested that this conclusion

was based in a five-year trajectory, and that changes in audi-

ence/organizational capacities could in fact change over time.

The fiscal and operating challenges that arts organizations

face continue to increase. Facility costs rank as one of the

highest investments, according to the 2008 Portfolio published

by the Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance (GPCA). The

report indicates aggregate spending on this budget line for all

local arts organizations was $2,614,000 per year (second only

to staff and human resource costs), and facility costs were

disproportionately burdensome for smaller organizations.

According to the report, operating costs have in general

been increasing at the highest rate among small to medium

organizations (124% from 1995 to 2005), far outpacing

increases among their larger organizational peers during the

same time period; and 70% of Greater Philadelphia’s cultural

organizations are classified as “small to medium” (annual

budgets under $1 million), with 40% of this group representing

“small” organizations (budgets under $250,000). Since the

preponderance of Philadelphia’s cultural sector is composed

of these smaller organizations, the health of the cultural

sector overall is profoundly affected by these rising costs.

Photo by John L. Shipman. The Mendelssohn Club of Philadelphia performs <<rewind//PLAY//fastforward>> at The Church of the Holy Trinity, Rittenhouse Square, in October 2009.


Despite these facts, the number of arts organizations continues to grow. As of this report, the Theatre Alliance for Greater

Philadelphia reported a membership of 150 companies and growing, and Dance USA Philadelphia reported similar trends with

a membership (Dance Pass holders) of 120. The vast majority of the constituents for both of these service organizations are

small to medium in size. While Philadelphia is home to many high-quality dedicated arts spaces, most are both too large in

audience capacity and too high in general overhead costs to offer feasible space resources for these smaller organizations. There

is thus a tremendous opportunity to approach sacred places, not just as a source of affordable arts space but more critically as

true long-term partners and sources of potential audience and additional support for arts organizations throughout the region.

Hypothesis II: Among the visual and performing arts organizations of Greater Philadelphia, there is an opportunity and desire to

welcome faith-based communities and facilities as partners for sharing space, developing potential audiences, and utilizing other

resources. We predicted that smaller arts organizations would (1) either have a history of or express interest in using sacred spaces

for various functions, (2) likely not have the technical outfitting or assets to use a non-traditional arts space,

(3) demonstrate a need for new and affordable spaces, and finally, (4) be fairly to highly receptive to using sacred places but might

anticipate concerns over content, belief systems, and other issues related to subject matter and aesthetics.

At the outset of the study, there was general awareness that arts groups—in particular smaller musical performing arts

organizations—regularly used sacred places for public programming. But despite this anecdotal knowledge, little information

has been gathered concerning the frequency and nature of arts use of sacred space. More critically, there had been little direct

research conducted on the organizational dynamics of both arts organizations and sacred places and how these dynamics

might be leveraged to the mutual benefit of both the artistic and faith-based communities.

IV. Goals

The original goals set forth in the proposal for the study are listed below and were instrumental in designing the data protocols

and research process:

1. To gather, collate, and analyze quantitative and qualitative data and input from at least 20 out of a core list of 40 sacred

spaces in Center City and 16 small fine- and performing-arts organizations active in Greater Philadelphia.

2. Based on this analysis, to identify the elements of a service program for Partners to facilitate and administer

relationships between arts organizations and sacred spaces.

3. To propose a “Readiness Index” as a benchmarking tool for self-assessment by sacred spaces and arts organizations, in

order to determine preparedness for participation in the service program.

4. To outline approaches for Training Workshops that Partners could develop to aid sacred spaces in improving their

readiness to participate in the service program.

5. To ensure that any new Partners service complements and intersects positively with current resources and service

organization programs in Greater Philadelphia.


V. Methodology

There has never been a due diligence study or assessment of best practices for how arts organizations and sacred spaces might

better work together. This project fills that void by documenting and analyzing a wide range of quantitative and qualitative

input with the intent to develop a new service program that will facilitate use- and partnership-based relationships between

arts organizations and sacred places.

i. Assessment Participants

The core participants and sources for the data gathered for the study came from two groups: one was Center City Philadelphia

sacred places and their congregants; and the other a group of small arts organizations whose programming and operations largely

take place in Center City. While the resultant programs (and further study) are intended to reach well beyond the boundaries of

Center City (which were in this case defined as Washington Avenue to Vine Street and the Delaware River to the Schuylkill River),

working with both arts organizations and sacred places already located or active in Center City offered a relatively controlled

“cultural district” frame around our conversations with participants. This area of Center City represents one of many cultural

districts in Philadelphia, and is perhaps the oldest and most publicly recognized of the city’s many emerging and established nodes

of cultural activity, which include, for instance, Germantown/Mt. Airy/Chestnut Hill or Northwest Philadelphia, among others.

Following Partners’ earlier work in Sacred Places at Risk, this study made the assumption that cultural use of sacred places follows

similar patterns to other secular uses: the communities surrounding the sacred place must be relevant to the potential partner

organization. In other words, an arts organization that might partner with a sacred place would need to be assured that the

sacred place is located in a neighborhood accessible to or frequented by its audiences, however those are defined or perceived. As

Center City is an established cultural center, it offered a concise “proving ground” for assessing the challenges and opportunities

concerning cultural use of sacred space. Factors that could mask other dynamics, such as perception barriers concerning audience

accessibility that might attach to other parts of the city, are not as prevalent in Center City, allowing the closest thing to “neutral

ground” upon which to assess the dynamics between both communities.

(1) Arts Organizations & Their Leadership: These participants comprised leaders from 18 performing arts organizations

distributed evenly over the three traditional disciplinary fields for performance, i.e., (music, dance, and theatre) (see Appendix ii,

Table 1). Since the intent of the project was to assess potential for partnerships rather than occasional uses of space, organizations

were chosen based on their need for space for multiple functions or for an extended period of time, thereby making longer-term

partnerships potentially more desirable. There are many organizations that could be occasional users of sacred space, but we

wanted to focus on the organizations likely to be “heavy” or regular users. The original cohort of organizations had included a

group of visual arts organizations, mostly incorporated artist collectives. The needs and resources of these organizations, however,

proved difficult to assess using the data protocols

established for the performing arts organizations and

sacred place participants. CultureWorks discovered

quickly that the protocol questions were not able

to capture critical issues for visual arts groups and

designed a new set of more qualitative questions for

the visual arts participants (see Appendix ii, Table 2).

Finally, Partners initiated conversations with six arts

organizations within Philadelphia that have long-

standing and successful residencies/partnerships with

sacred places, all of which reported the sacred place to

be a central aspect to their organization’s health and

public identity development (see Appendix ii, Table 3).

Photo by Ryan Collerd. Andrew Thiboldeaux performs on the pipe organ of Christ Church in Philadelphia in March 2011 as part of the Blindspot Festival presented by Ladybird and Bowerbird


(2) Congregations & Their Leadership: Prior to the study, Partners had identified and established some degree of relationship with

40 Center City congregations, consisting of mostly Christian and Jewish denominations. Many of these congregations—roughly

25—had worked with Partners under the New Dollars/New Partners program. To retain parity between the samples of sacred

places and arts organizations, 23 sacred places were scheduled for in-depth site visits and data collection (see Appendix ii, Table 4).

The balance of sacred places was subject to telephone interviews that gathered more general (less in-depth) data on cultural use

and other data points (see Appendix ii,Table 5).

(3) Additional Participants: In addition to the main cohorts of participants described above, several additional groups of

participants offered invaluable feedback concerning the goals of the study, though we did not use the data protocol designed

for the core cohorts on these groups. Instead, each of these cohorts was engaged through a group meeting at which the goals

and process of the study were presented, along with preliminary results and recommendations, and each group was engaged in

discussion of these, with particular questions posed concerning: (a) how this project might impact or benefit them and

(b) what challenges and opportunities might they perceive in opening up more sacred space for cultural use.

(a) Visual Arts Organizations & Individual Visual Artists: This group consisted of two visual arts organizations, Center for

Emerging Visual Artists (CFEVA), and InLiquid. These interviews were followed by two convenings of individual visual

artists, invited by these organizations: one focus group of four artists held on November 30, 2010, at the Crane Arts

building; and a larger group of 17 artists held on February 23, 2011, at the Leeway Foundation.

(b) Emerging Dance and Theatre Organizations: At the recommendation of the Theatre Alliance of Greater Philadelphia and

Dance/UP, we convened an open meeting for emerging dance and theatre artists on December 8, 2010, at Shiloh Baptist

Church. This meeting was organized in response to both service organizations, sense that there were a large number of

emerging artists and companies that might not fulfill the criteria for the study (described below) but that might soon

be able to do so, and they would be valuable potential participants and beneficiaries. Instead of conducting individual

site visits as with the core groups, a group discussion with 24 artists crossing both fields provided input from these

constituents.

(c) Cultural Service Organizations: Finally, to directly address Goal #5 (above), we convened a meeting of leaders from the core

service organizations in Philadelphia. The meeting was held on November 10, 2010, at Partners for Sacred Places’ office

and consisted of a report on mid-term findings and potential recommendations, followed by a discussion of how these

might mesh with other programs and services being offered in Philadelphia. In addition to Partners and CultureWorks

staff, participating organizations included:

Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia

Historical Society of Pennsylvania

Dance USA Philadelphia (Dance/UP)

Theatre Alliance of Greater Philadelphia

Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance

InLiquid

Center for Emerging Visual Artists

City of Philadelphia Office of Arts, Culture & the

Creative Economy

Stockton Rush Bartol Foundation


ii. Selection Process & Criteria

Close to 100 sacred places and arts groups within Philadelphia were initially identified. Partners and CultureWorks worked

closely with the Theatre Alliance, InLiquid, and Dance/UP, as well as the Philadelphia Music Project (The Pew Center for Arts &

Heritage), to select performing arts groups that conform to the following set of criteria:

Evidences active and responsive board and artistic/

executive leadership

Has been in operation for at least 3 full seasons/fiscal years

Offers regular season of at least 2–6 programs per year

in Philadelphia

Has an annual operating budget between $50,000 and

$500,000

Has active and current e-mail contact to most/all of its

core audience

Since this is a pilot study, the purpose was not to survey all possible organizations but rather a sample cohort that might be

indicative of the attitudes, organizational attributes, and other variables we set out to assess.

iii. Data Protocols

The research data protocols used for the study addressed both quantitative and qualitative data. The consulting team created

initial draft protocols and these were circulated to and reviewed by staff members of Partners, Dance/UP, the Theatre Alliance,

and CFEVA for feedback. A meeting was convened to review and discuss in detail the proposed protocols and they subsequently

went through several rounds of revisions before site visits commenced in early September. To facilitate standardized data

collection in the field through site visits, a custom FileMaker database was created to collate and store all data (both quantitative

and qualitative). The database was configured to allow data coding of qualitative results for the collation and analysis process. The

following cohorts were used to analyze the data gathered:

Physical & Technical Data—Primary Cohort

(Sacred Places)

Physical & Technical Data—Primary Cohort

(Arts Organizations)

Organizational Data—Primary Cohort (Sacred Places)

Organizational Data—Primary Cohort

(Arts Organizations)

Arts Partnerships and Use Data–Secondary Cohort

(Sacred Places)

Case Study Data (Arts Organizations)

In addition, the original project scope specified collection of some broad data from congregations and audiences of primary

cohort organizations. This data included information on attitudes toward partnering, preferences in choosing venues for arts

experiences, and demographics. Site-intercept collection was not originally included in the scope, so this data was collected

through an electronic survey. After several initial trials, it was determined that site-intercept collection would be necessary, as the

electronically collected data was not statistically significant enough to assess as part of this report. A full site-intercept study of

congregants and arts audiences would be a logical follow-on project to the current study.


iv. Collection Methods

The project began with a public information session. On August 5, 2010, Partners hosted an open house for an audience of 57

sacred and cultural leaders at the First Presbyterian Church to disperse general information about the study and to catalyze

interest and enthusiasm among potential participants. CultureWorks and Partners presented the goals, general methodology,

and kinds of data to be gathered, as well as expected time commitment from participants, and addressed questions.

Once the data protocols were complete and the final participant lists confirmed, site visits were scheduled with core leadership

of all primary-cohort sacred places and arts organizations. Each site visit scheduling inquiry was accompanied by a formal data

request for budgets, tenant lists, current contracts, personnel and governance lists, annual reports, and other key organizational

documents. The site visit consisted of a tour of the facilities (for sacred places) and a two-hour conversation with leaders from

the selected places/organizations regarding history, mission, finances, and personnel, as well as attitudinal and other qualitative

feedback. Sacred places leadership met for a second interview with a preservation architect and/or the project’s two preservation

interns, who reviewed building layout, capacity, condition, and life safety. Arts groups were required to fill out an additional survey

detailing their technical and special needs.

VI. Key Findings

The key findings of the study, derived from the data collected and analyzed from the primary cohort of sacred place and arts

organization participants, is summarized below and organized according to the three key areas of readiness to partner:

(1) Physical & Technical Capacity – physical needs/capacities from the standpoint of space and facilities, as well as

technical and equipment outfitting required for cultural use.

(2) Organizational Capacity – the overall financial and operating capacity and health of organizations, focusing on human

resources, finances, and leadership energy and drive.

(3) Receptivity Capacity – the degree of receptivity to cultural use (from the standpoint of faith communities) and to

sacred space use (from the standpoint of arts organizations).

i. Sacred Places: Physical & Technical Capacity

There is a high degree of space availability and occupancy capacity

among sacred places, even considering current faith-based uses.

! Most of the space—both in terms of number

of rooms and square footage in sacred places

(sanctuary and non-sanctuary)—is available, with

the exception of on Sunday morning (see Appendix

iii, Graph 1).

! A number of the sacred places assessed revealed

substantial spaces that are completely unused by the

congregations. These spaces possess great potential

for dedicated arts use, but most also require some

degree of capital investment to enable re-use.

! The majority (56–64%) of spaces (sanctuary as well

as non-sanctuary) within the sacred places surveyed

have a high degree of flexibility, or the ability to alter

seating/stage arrangements (see Appendix iii,

Graph 2). The sanctuary spaces are overwhelmingly

of limited flexibility (only one sanctuary does not

have fixed pews), while the parish hall-type spaces

are typically very flexible.


Photo by Karl Seifert. Inis Nua Theatre Company performs Dublin by Lamplight at Broad Street Ministry in May 2011.


Most of the spaces studied are in good physical condition, with few zoning, life safety, or other physical limitations.

! The majority of buildings (68%) featured in this study are in fair to good condition.

! There were a considerable number of sites with minor life-safety issues (47%). Minor issues include requirements

for additional exit signage and emergency lighting, or seating capacities that only slightly exceed the egress capacity

(widths of stairs and exit doors). A number of spaces (14%) were identified as having major life-safety issues, such no

fire alarm systems, dead end corridors, or drastically insufficient egress capacities.

! The majority of spaces (55%) featured in the study are categorized by the city’s current zoning code in a manner that

should not present obstacles to assembly use outside of religious purposes (commercial, mixed use, or industrial).

The remainder of the spaces in the study (45%), however, are zoned residential, which may present obstacles to

certain uses of the building. In such cases, the houses of worship should communicate their plans to expand

programming with their particular neighborhood’s civic organization. Further research on this issue is needed.

Most of the spaces, given their Center City location, are located in safe areas with good access to public

transportation and other public amenities.

! The majority of spaces (73%) featured in the study have good access to public transportation and parking facilities.

Another 23% have fair access. Only one location was deemed to have less than desirable transportation access (see

Appendix iii, Graph 3).

Most spaces have a significant lack of technical outfitting (lighting, sound, staging, etc.) required for arts use, and

many also have insufficient public amenities (restrooms, kitchens, cloakrooms, elevators, etc.)

! The majority of spaces (59%) featured in the study have no adjustable lighting. Some spaces (27%) have lighting

control by dimmers only, while fewer (14%) have more sophisticated lighting control. At the time of the study, no

congregations owned lighting grids, although one congregation was exploring grant funding for its theatre space

(see Appendix iii, Graph 4).

! Fewer than half of the spaces (42%) had wireless microphone audio systems, 25% of the spaces had only fixed

microphone systems, and 33% of the spaces had no audio systems at all (see Appendix iii, Graph 5).

! Just 14% of the sites had restrooms with more than 8 stalls per sex. Half of the sites had between 3 and 8 stalls per

sex, while 36% had fewer than 3 stalls per sex.

! Accessibility for the disabled is a challenge at many of the spaces in the study. Just 8% of the individual spaces are

fully accessible, while another 41% are moderately accessible. The remaining 41% of spaces have major accessibility

challenges, primarily due to lack of elevator access to upper-level spaces.


ii. Sacred Places: Organizational Capacity

Most congregation sizes are small (and have reduced in size over the last several decades) and place a high reliance

on part-time or volunteer staff.

! Most congregation sizes for the sacred places in this study are within the 100 to 200 range

(average = 249, median = 200).

! Most sacred places have total staff sizes between 5 and 10 (average = 7.5, median = 9).

! There is a high degree of variability among volunteers for the sacred places in this study ranging from none to 156

(average = 60, median = 50).

Most sacred places have only one staff member (in many cases part-time or volunteer) who is dedicated to handling

partner or tenant relations, among other significant duties.

! Despite high numbers of volunteers, most sacred places lack staff or human resources to manage community

partners or tenants. In most cases, there is one office manager, building manager, or sexton, part of whose job is to

manage non-congregant use of facilities. Many faith leaders and lay leaders noted that while they would welcome

more use of their spaces, they feel “maxed out” or unable to handle further partners or tenants from a management

and operations standpoint.

Most sacred places exhibit fair to strong financial oversight and management practices, yet most have little cash

reserves and operate with thin positive margins or notable deficits.

! The majority of sacred places have strong financial oversight but exhibit deficits or debts, according to the most recent

financial statements submitted.

Most sacred places undervalue their space for rental or community use but feel conflicted between a mission drive to

make space available and their basic business needs required to operate the space.

! All faith leaders interviewed understand part of their mission as offering their space to the community for free or at

a low cost. At the same time, there is a general acknowledgement that sacred places do need to realize revenue from

community use in order for the space to remain an asset to the community. This “mission vs. business” conflict is the

root of a great deal of concern among faith leaders.

iii. Sacred Places: Receptivity Capacity

There was a generally high degree of receptivity to welcoming artists and arts organizations into their spaces and as

potential partners.

! There is a very high amount of receptivity (70%) among the sacred places interviewed in this study (see Appendix iii,

Graph 6).

! Sacred places exhibit very high levels (88% of “Good” to “High”) of vested interest (see Appendix iii, Graph 7),

defined as a willingness to commit concrete investments toward partnering with arts organizations.

! At the same time, there was hesitation and concern from approximately half of the sacred places over artistic content

and subject matter and how to manage controversial or difficult subjects. Most faith leaders found the challenge

welcome or even mission-centric, but there remained apprehension and an articulated need for more methods and

processes for addressing difficult subjects and modes of artistic discourse.


There was some concern about how well arts organizations understood and respected the organizational workings

and other important aspects of sacred space, such as sacred objects, iconography, and places designated for specific

sacred uses.

! Concern over the general “faith literacy” of arts organizations and their ability to “speak the language” of both sacred

spaces and faith communities figured prominently in some conversations. For instance, there was concern (based

on past experience) that artists would treat a sanctuary the same way as a theatre and risk disrespecting (or even

possibly defiling) sacred objects and spaces. Additionally, faith issues aside, there are often substantial conservation

and preservation issues that artists must be aware of working in historic buildings, often with significant decorative

and sacred art objects.

The primary motive among most sacred places to welcoming partnership was the acquisition of more stakeholder

relationships (people), not revenue, which ranked second.

! Qualitative data consistently evidenced the desire to develop new stakeholder relationships as primary above rental or

other income streams. This is coherent with the corollary finding that sacred places largely under-value their space.

There was a generally high degree of energy and drive among faith leadership to build and strengthen their

communities.

! Qualitative assessment found a generally high degree of clearly articulated vision, mission, and leadership energy

among faith and lay leadership. There was a high drive to find new ways to attract people to their faith community,

not primarily for evangelical reasons but more for reasons of broadening their base of secular activity and support.

iv. Arts Organizations: Physical & Technical Capacity

Most arts organizations have diverse space needs (rehearsal, performance, storage, workshop, administration,

education, etc.), with a heavy emphasis on evening use.

! Arts organizations expressed a broad range of time needs for space—morning to night, Monday to Sunday—for

rehearsals, classes, and performances (see Appendix iii, Graph 8).

Most arts organization do not own or have access to technical outfitting needed for their work and would rely on

those needs to be supplied by venues.

! Nearly all organizations polled about access to and ownership of technical equipment responded that they owned

little to no equipment, certainly not major equipment, such as lighting, sound systems, and flooring.

! The top two factors that influence an arts organization’s decision concerning potential space use are (1) availability

of on-street parking for both performers and audiences and (2) schedule availability, due to the enormous scheduling

constraints encountered in a largely freelance artist community (see Appendix iii, Graph 9).


v. Arts Organizations: Organizational Capacity

All organizations evidenced extremely limited staff and volunteer capacity, citing acute needs in the areas of human

resources and volunteers.

! Arts organizations show high levels of variance when comparing numbers of personnel involved, with board sizes

ranging from none to 13, individual supporters from none to 25, and staff from none to 37.

All organizations exhibited modest annual and per-event attendance, and a strong desire and need to develop new

audiences, in light of decreasing institutional support.

! Arts organizations exhibit high levels of variance for core audience sizes (the average number of attendees over all

of the organizations’ events), but average audience size per performance was modest and matched capacities of the

sacred places assessed, ranging from 50 - 800, (average = 363, median = 290).

Most arts organizations are not in a strong financial position and lack overall staff and management capacity.

! Approximately half of the groups exhibit debt and/or operating deficits according to the most recent budgets

submitted.

! In addition, most arts organizations lack staff capacity to prospect, facilitate, and develop new partnerships, despite

an interest in and need for them. Most organizations are operating with one core staff member, supported by

volunteers and contractors.

vi. Arts Organizations: Receptivity Capacity

Among arts organizations, there was a high degree of receptivity and interest in exploring partnerships with sacred

places.

! There is a high amount of receptivity (82% exhibiting “high” or “good” receptivity levels) for working with sacred

places (see Appendix iii, Graph 10).

! A fair number of arts organizations (52%) exhibited a vested interest in committing to partnerships with sacred

places (see Appendix iii, Graph 11).

There were concerns about public and peer perceptions of arts organizations being “non-professional” if located in

a sacred place, as opposed to a designated arts space.

! Qualitative research found a pattern among different artists who expressed concerns that they would be perceived as

“amateur” by forming a strong partnership with a sacred space.

Among arts organizations with some history of working in sacred spaces, there were comments about conflicts in

“priorities” and perceived lack of respect for artists’ property and workspace from congregants/faith leaders.

! While most arts organizations were very open to partnering with sacred places, there was a frequent perception

that sacred places would not be open to their work or would somehow constrict creative freedom, depending on the

subject matter at hand. While this perception maybe true in certain contexts, approximately half of the sacred places

interviewed expressed relatively minor concerns about artistic content.

! There were many comments and concerns raised about how “welcome” or important arts tenants felt in sacred places

in which they had worked. In addition, there were concerns over how well congregants and lay staff/faith leaders

understood the work of the artists and their needs.


VII. Other Participant Input

The following is a summary of feedback gathered from the additional arts participant groups, much of which echoes and

affirms findings from the primary cohort findings.

i. Visual Arts Organizations and Individual Visual Artists

The first meeting with a visual arts organization quickly revealed that the quantitative and qualitative questions developed for

music, dance, and theater arts organizations were not applicable to the challenges that the visual arts community faces. Most

visual arts organizations in Philadelphia are already based in a facility for studio and/or gallery space. For this reason, the

technical and space-usage data made available through this study was not relevant to the five visual arts groups, since their

mission was already rooted in an established home base. However, all groups expressed interest in the possibility of a Center

City visual arts exhibition space, as well as studio subsidies/residencies for individual visual artists, both of which could find a

home in sacred spaces.

In addition to the five formal interviews hosted with visual arts organizations, InLiquid facilitated a focus group event with

two visual artists on November 30, 2010, in order to learn more about this project and express ideas that would inform our

study. The conversation yielded the following ideas and findings. Any of the ideas below could be developed into a program

administered by Partners in collaboration with a visual arts organization or collective:

The visual arts community is in need of more affordable

studio spaces, in particular live-work spaces, especially

within Center City.

Artists are increasingly selecting a specific site as

an integral part of an artistic presentation, and

sacred spaces offer a diverse range of unique and

appealing sites. This affords an opportunity to engage

authoritative curators in using sacred spaces for both

emerging and established artists.

Artist residencies (often in which the artist literally lives

in the space or proximate to it) provide great program

opportunities, in which the artist (or artists) can de-

velop close relationships with the site stakeholders, find

the stability and support to create ambitious work, and

often enter into labor exchanges with the sacred place

(i.e., offering help with physical or cosmetic improve-

ments) or simply provide informal custodianship of

the space. There is a great need for residencies that are

longer than six months up to a year that would allow for

more expansive artist projects and deeper partnership

potential.

Photo by Joseph E.B. Elliott. Steven Earl Webber’s art installation of Like Lambs presented by HiddenCity Philadelphia at the Shiloh Baptist Church in May 2009.


An additional event was hosted with the Center for Emerging Visual Artists (CFEVA) at the Leeway Foundation on March 17,

2011. Seventeen attendees provided the following insights:

For training sessions, Partners should not only

incorporate faith and artistic leaders but the

congregation at large, so that these individuals are

trained in ways to respond to conflicts concerning

how a sacred space should be used and develop

broader understanding and buy-in about the value of

partnerships.

There is need for an awareness campaign—which might

use significant examples such as Judson Church and St.

Anne’s in New York City—and further research in order

to challenge the perception that artists based in sacred

places lack a professional or field legitimacy, Visual

artists are eager to work in new spaces and engage

with congregations. However, museum curators and

funders still do not consider work with a sacred place

as a “professional” or “competitive” engagement from

an artist résumé standpoint. The politics of space in

the art field is such that sacred spaces carry an aura of

less “industry credibility” than established art spaces (or

even other kinds of alternative spaces with more neutral

valence, such as warehouses, commercial spaces, etc.).

Access to group insurance or insurance for individual

artists or events is often a barrier to visual artists

utilizing space, in particular when it comes to insuring

art objects, such as paintings and sculptures.

The initiative to encourage deeper relationships

among art and sacred communities could potentially

compete for business with long-standing art centers

(e.g., Crane Arts). Partners should emphasize the ways

in which the project increases the overall capacity of

the community and does not introduce substantial

competition. Individual project or artist needs are as

diverse as the space options in Philadelphia, and no two

spaces are alike, which ensures that direct head-to-head

competition is likely not an operative dynamic within

this community.

ii. Emerging Dance & Theatre Organizations

On December 8, 2010, Shiloh Baptist Church allowed service organizations Dance/UP and the Theatre Alliance to host an

event for their emerging artist constituents. The event featured short presentations and conversations with two performing

arts groups that have long-standing relationships with sacred places: Curio Theatre (which is in residence at the Calvary Center

in West Philadelphia) and Kùlú Mèlé African Drum and Dance (which is an administrative tenant of Summit Presbyterian

Church). The audience of 24 raised the following concerns and questions:

There are a large number of sacred spaces that

historically and currently express interest in working

with arts organizations.

Attendees expressed a need for more spaces in which to

administer, create, rehearse, and perform work within

Center City Philadelphia. (More options are currently

available outside Center City.)

Among the artists who had had prior relationships

with sacred spaces, a two-year time period was

proposed as the minimum commitment for a sense of

trust to be built between the sacred space and the arts

organization.

Sacred spaces present an ideal setting to offer arts

programming (e.g., performances, education, and

community engagement) for people who prefer to stay

in their local community (i.e., not travel to Center

City or the Avenue of the Arts).

There are many ways in which sacred places overlap

with or could offer additional amenities for families

with children, such as places for childcare during arts

events.


iii. Cultural Service Organizations

A meeting was hosted at Partner for Sacred Places’ office for arts service organizations of Greater Philadelphia. (For a list of

participants, see page 9.) Leaders of these organizations expressed the following concerns and ideas regarding the implications

of assessing and encouraging partnership between sacred places and arts organizations:

While promoting engagement between the artistic

and sacred communities as a whole is one measure

of success, equal emphasis must be put on building

capacity for each participating artistic organization or

sacred place. Sacred places often miss opportunities

to educate audiences and other secular users about the

history of their space and their contributions to the

community. Likewise, arts organizations will need to

do the same with respect to faith communities.

The visual arts community faces three unique challenges

that must be considered: (1) the market for emerging

Philadelphia-based visual artists seems weak compared to

other major metropolitan areas; (2) there is no umbrella

service organization for visual arts equal to the Theatre

Alliance and/or Dance/UP for visual arts organizations

and artists; and (3) visual arts communities are

geographically spread throughout West Philadelphia,

North Philadelphia/Kensington, and other locales,

lacking a geographic focus and identity (outside of Old City).

As sacred places move forward with their work with

the arts community, it will be critical to coordinate

their efforts with the Cultural Alliance’s “How We

Grow” campaign, as well as other service organizations’

projects and programs. There is a natural intersection

with the Cultural Alliance’s “PhillySpaceFinder”

program and the future implementation of the

Partners initiative. Partners’ staff can populate

PhillySpaceFinder with data on sacred places, for

instance, and help build that online data resource.

When implementing the recommendations detailed

below (see Section IX), Partners should coordinate

closely with its peer service organizations in fund-

raising and development initiatives. The peer

organizations also recognized the potential benefit of

implementing elements of these recommendations, and

there are several areas of potential overlap in delivery of

services.

VIII. Matching Assets and Deficits

In examining the data across the three main areas of study, comparison of findings revealed points where data converged in

complementary ways (a surplus asset of one group, such as space, can be used to address a deficit for another) or convergent

ways (in which a deficit or asset is shared by both groups, suggesting the need for investment or other action). The following

summary of parallel findings from the study points to opportunities for three kinds of investment:

Human System: Shared staff and personnel forces to

facilitate and operate partnerships.

Knowledge/Data Systems: Knowledge about assets and

capacities among potential partners.

Physical & Technical Improvements: Small capital

investment in technical/physical improvements.


Photo by Kyle Cassidy. Curio Theatre Company performs The Odyssey at Calvary United Methodist Church-Philadelphia in March 2008.


Physical & Technical Capacity


There is an acute need for space for a diversity of uses. There is substantial space available for a diversity of uses.

Arts organizations own little to no technical outfitting. Sacred places own little to no technical outfitting.

There is little data on space needs across disciplines. There is little data on available sacred spaces.

Organizational Capacity


Staff resources to develop partnerships are limited. Staff resources to develop partnerships are limited.

Operating margins are thin, often with debt/deficit. Operating margins are thin, often with debt/deficit.

There is a great need to develop audiences. There is a great need to develop community stakeholders.

Receptivity Capacity


There is great receptivity/drive to find a home base. There is great receptivity/drive to find arts partners.

There is little understanding of how sacred places operate. There is little understanding of how arts orgs operate.

There is leadership energy and drive to form partnerships. There is leadership energy and drive to form partnerships.

LEGEND: Green = Human Systems Investment Gray = Physical & Technical Investment Blue = Knowledge/Data Systems Investment

IX. Recommendations

i. Create a Training Program and Membership Database

Addressing the opportunities and needs identified around Knowledge/Data Systems Investment, we recommend that Partners

develop a training program, modeled on and perhaps even connected to New Dollars/New Partners, to improve knowledge of and

sensitivity to the issues detailed below, which are key to developing partnerships between arts organizations and sacred places. The

suggested training curricula below could be delivered in partnership with other peer service organizations. A portion

of it could be approached separately, but there is much to recommend a joint training approach throughout as a means of

commencing conversation and relationships.


For sacred places, curriculum points might include:

Primer on arts organization needs

and operating structure that

outlines how to work effectively

with the governance of arts orga-

nizations, including key language,

terms, and sensitivities that relate

to communicating effectively

with artists of various disciplines.

Information on the challenges that

sacred communities share with the

cultural community, and where

opportunities exist to develop both

human and financial resources for

both; in particular, how to describe

the assets and needs at play in any

potential partnership.

Primer on how to talk with artists

about sensitive or controver-

sial subject matter—whom to

approach, pointers on framing

dialogue and process.

Discussion of the historic relation-

ship between artistic practice and

sacred places and communities

beyond the role of arts in worship;

understanding sacred space as a

“legitimate” or even desirable venue

for artistic innovation and identity

building.

Technical and physical infrastruc-

ture arts organizations need and

how to assess and inventory the as-

sets of a sacred place and prepare

facilities for arts use.

Co-marketing and co-producing

arts events with partner arts

organizations, as well as mount-

ing co-fundraisers and other

programming and development

strategies.

For arts organizations, curriculum points might include:

Primer on organizational struc-

ture, property ownership, and fi-

nancial structures for sacred com-

munities, including key language,

terms, and sensitivities that relate

to communicating effectively with

sacred communities and various

prevalent faiths/denominations.

Information on the challenges that

sacred communities share with the

cultural community, and where

opportunities exist to develop both

human and financial resources for

both; in particular, how to describe

the assets and needs at play in any

potential partnership.

Basic training in sensitivity to

historic structures and objects

conservation: what can and can’t

be done in a historic structure and

with/around historic and/or sacred

objects and icons.

Primer on how to talk with sacred

communities about sensitive

or controversial subject matter:

whom to approach, pointers on

framing dialogue and process.

Discussion of the historic relation-

ship between artistic practice and

sacred places and communities

beyond the role of arts in worship;

understanding sacred space as a

“legitimate” or even desirable venue

for artistic innovation and identity

building.

Co-marketing and co-producing

arts events with partner sacred

places, as well as mounting co-

fundraisers and other program-

ming and development strategies.

A major part of the training will include the development of turn-key tools for partnership that could be included in a

handbook and/or online, such as:

Process and facilitation approach

to creating a framework for

content management (i.e., clearly

stated policies on what can and

cannot be done within the vari-

ous spaces, such as nudity, swear

words, etc.) and conflict resolution

tools

Terminology and information on

arts disciplines and faith denomi-

nations

Space valuation guidelines and

financial assessment pro formas

Common lease agreements and

financial pro formas

Technical inventory checklists/as-

sessment tools

Technical rider forms

Basic organizational and site data

collection tools


Finally, a master database should be developed and maintained by Partners for tracking constituents before and after training,

as well as cultivating connections based on needs and interests. Certain aspects of this database would intersect with and be

shared with PhillySpaceFinder.

ii. Develop a Shared Management Solution

Addressing the “Human Systems Investment” needs, we recommend that Partners create management capacity for this

program within Partners’ staff. This suggestion has already met with a very enthusiastic response from potential users of the

program.

There is very little (to no) human resource infrastructure on either side (small arts organizations and sacred places) to manage

the operations and needs of greater cultural use:

Marketing sacred space to the cultural community

Managing inquiries, preparing contracts, and vetting

prospective tenants/partners

Identifying and facilitating partnership opportunities

and relationships

Negotiating fees and acceptable fee arrangements (need

for a neutral third party)

Managing technical and operating needs of arts

organizations in situ

Most sacred places indicated that they would be comfortable with having a trusted outside staff person (trained and oriented to

their facility and properly insured/bonded) handle marketing to negotiating with, communicating with, and even stewarding

arts organizations in situ. Final approval of any use would still lie with church/synagogue authorities. Arts organizations also

are interested in having a reliable designated contact person onsite at the sacred places. These needs could be met with one or

two full-time positions, or one position supported by a stable of contractors. Such contractors could include production crew

and technical experts (sound, lighting, carpentry), among others. Staff would perform the following functions for a “portfolio”

of sacred spaces and arts organizations:

Market and promote the resources of sacred places to

the cultural community

Be a first (primary) point of contact between the

cultural community and sacred places

Individually vet and assess both basic rental

opportunities and possibilities for partnership

Manage fee negotiations, contracting, and other legal

issues

Handle technical inquiries, provide physical access, and

steward organizations on site

This program manager would not only handle basic rental/use matters, but also principally be an identifier/facilitator of deeper

partnership opportunities—in essence the connector and “go-to” point of contact between the cultural community and the

faith-based community.

iii. Develop a Rental Subvention Program

Modeled on the rental subvention program currently operated by Dance/UP, Partners could provide rental subsidies to arts

organizations for the use of sacred spaces in the city to address the “Catalytic Capital Investment” needs. This approach has

proven to be a very successful way of “multiplying” the investment of funders through a “triple bottom-line solution,” as in

each case it benefits directly an arts organization, a faith-based community, and (in most cases) the preservation of a historic

building.


iv. Develop a Capital Re-granting Program

Following in Partners’ re-granting work through New Dollars/New Partners, a re-granting program may be developed in

partnership with peer service organizations also to address the “Catalytic Capital Investment” needs identified. This program

might support the following investment for participants of this program:

Low-level capital space improvements to prepare

spaces for cultural use

Technical outfitting (portable or in situ) for various

arts uses

Access or life-safety physical plant investments

Co-production and other content development support

X. Appendix

i. Next Steps

In addition to the core implementation recommendations above and the fundraising efforts needed to capitalize them, the

following immediate next steps are recommended:

1. Generate an early case study: Before completion of this project, three arts and sacred places partnership projects developed

as a result of this study. InLiquid exhibited 19 works from the organization’s past art auctions and successfully sold some of

the works in Society Hill Synagogue’s Gallery Space from March-April 2011. Secondly, the six theatre groups interviewed

during this study met with the First Baptist Church to explore the possibility of shared administrative, production, rehearsal,

and performance usage. And lastly, a group of choreographers will meet in August 2011 with Dance/UP and Shiloh Baptist

Church to discuss utilizing the church’s currently unused gymnasium space as a center for dance rehearsal and education.

An early case study to test some of the processes and gather “proof of concept” would assist in raising funds and gathering

additional stakeholders for the project.

Photo by Milton Burgada. Choral Arts Philadelphia performs Mozart in Salzburg at Saint Mark’s Episcopal Church in October 2010.


2. Consider issues and dynamics for further study/exposition: The larger issues outlined below may warrant further

study and exposition as part of the implementation process:

Defining a “morals clause” and combating false assumptions: The issue of how congregations confront, process, mediate,

and come to terms with (or approve) artistic content and subject matter that is challenging or contrary to belief systems

was prevalent in many of our conversations. For many more moderate to liberal denominations, there was a very high

tolerance—even in some instances encouragement—of challenging artistic subject matter. It was considered to be part

of the human and social dialogue central to the community mission of the mosque, synagogue, or church. There were

many acknowledgements that both artists and faith communities are “stewards of the human soul.” More orthodox

denominations, however, expressed much more caution or outright prohibition of certain content that would be considered

profane or sacrilegious. Most faith leadership articulated a desire to have clearer or more publicly discussed reference

points for passing judgment on how different artistic content might co-exist with their principles of faith. In most every

case, the practical reality was that the pastor, priest, or rabbi is the ultimate authority in deciding how to handle potentially

controversial artistic subject matter or discourse.

Establishing discussion guidelines and parameters: We found that both sides (arts organizations and sacred places)

held false or negatively distorted assumptions and perceptions that dialogue about subject matter would be difficult or

unwelcome. Of the many congregations we visited, the First Unitarian Church had developed the most sophisticated and

consensus-based approach to defining its congregation’s boundaries through a “morals clause” included in their rental

agreement. This clause is not a decision engine, but offers a bellwether and point of reference for faith leadership to use

when making a decision about subject matter or artistic practices.

Addressing the politics of space: This issue was touched upon earlier and concerns the perceptions of artists working

in sacred space by their artistic peers and by a certain sector of the general public who are art connoisseurs. There was

the concern that sacred spaces do not have the same aesthetic or political legitimacy that other spaces built (or used)

exclusively for art might have, such as a gallery, theatre, or concert hall. Perceptions and concerns varied according

to discipline. Musical organizations were much more comfortable viewing a sacred space as a legitimate professional

venue, whereas dance and theatre thought sacred spaces to be more “starter” venues and that true artistic credibility only

would come with graduation to an established or “real” art venue. Visual artists seemed most concerned with the imprint of

space, in particular as it relates to curatorial practice. If, for instance, a notable curator were engaged to create an installation or

exhibition in a sacred space, the credibility of the curator would most likely outweigh other possibly negative perception, but

a sacred space alone would need to somehow become imbued with curatorial and aesthetic/arts community credibility before

such spaces could be seen as desirable for public exhibition of visual art works. It is important to note that other non-public

uses, such as studio, storage, residency, and teaching uses, posed less or no concern.

Expanding the availability of resources: Several sacred places with already established arts programs voiced concern

about competition for arts clients and partners. Would this project create too much space and undermine already

established arts spaces’ business and market interests? These issues were clearly addressed with arts organizations, and

they articulated that each choice of space involves a multitude of factors (i.e., aesthetics, size, location, relationships with

staff, etc.). Arts organizations explicated that there is no such thing as a “neutral” space, and current affordable spaces

are booked solid up to 2014. Since each space that the sacred places offer is unique, and there is already maximization among

cultural facilities, the potential for a loss in market is low if sacred places increase accessibility/scheduling of spaces.

Pursuing audience development through faith-based communities: Many studies, including the GPCA’s recent

Research Into Action and “Engage 2020,” point to confluences and direct relationships between faith-oriented activity

and lifestyles and arts and culture participation. Anecdotally, several musical arts organizations interviewed mentioned

that there are certain churches they regularly rent because the faith leadership is diligent about encouraging concert

attendance among the congregation. More in-depth study about the potential audiences for the arts among the faith-

based communities of Philadelphia would be a natural extension and follow-on to this project.


ii. Tables

Table 1. Performing Arts Organizations Formally Interviewed in 2010

Organization Discipline

1 Dance Theatre X

Dance

2 Illstyle and Peace Production

3 Kulu Mele African Dance

4 Miro Dance Theatre

5The Smoke Lilies and Jade Arts Initiative

6 Three Aksha

7 Black Pearl Orchestra

Music

8 Bowerbird

9 Mendelssohn Club of Philadelphia

10 Tempesta di Mare

11 Ars Nova Workshop

12 First Person ArtsPerformance Presenting

13 Brat Productions

Theater

14 EgoPo

15 Inis Nua

16 Mauckingbird

17 11th Hour Theater Co.

18 Azuka Theatre

Table 2. Visual Arts Organizations Informally Interviewed in 2010

1 InLiquid

2 Nexus/Foundation

3 FLUXspace

4 Center for Emerging Visual Artists

5 little berlin

Table 3. Arts Organizations with Longstanding Relationships with Sacred Spaces, Interviewed in 2010

Theater Organization Sacred Space

1 Curio Theatre Company Calvary United Methodist Church

2Philadelphia Shakespeare Company

Lutheran Church of the Holy Communion

3 Lantern Theater Company

St. Stephens Church

4 R5 Productions First Unitarian Church

5 Hybridge Arts Collective Broad Street Ministry

6 Art SanctuaryChurch of the Advocate


Table 4. Sacred Places Formally Interviewed in 2010

In the chronological order in which they were interviewed.

1 First Baptist Church

2 Church of St. Luke & the Epiphany

3 Arch Street Methodist Church

4 First Unitarian Church

5 Society Hill Synagogue

6 Trinity Memorial Church

7 Old Pine Presbyterian Church

8 Tenth Presbyterian Church

9 Old First Reformed United Methodist Church

10 Saint Mark’s Episcopal Church

11 Saint Peters Episcopal Church

12 Lutheran Holy Church

13 Christ Church

14 First Presbyterian Church

15 Friends Center

16 Historic St. George United Methodist Church

17 Tindley Temple United Methodist Church

18 Albanian Orthodox Church of St. John Chrysostom

19 Shiloh Baptist Church

20Mother Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church

21 Saint John Evangelist Catholic Church

22 Episcopal Church of the Holy Trinity

23 Saint George Greek Orthodox Cathedral

Table 5. Sacred Places – Secondary Cohort

These sacred places spoke with Partners for a brief 20-minute phone conversation and did not partake in the following: building tour, supplying a budget, documented history of sacred place, and online surveys to congregants.

1 United Muslim Masjid

2 Cathedral Basilica Saints Peter and Paul

3 Holy Redeemer Catholic Church

4 Kesher Israel Synagogue

5 Old St. Joseph’s Church

6 Waters Memorial African Methodist Episcopal

7 Wesley African Methodist Episcopal

8 Broad Street Ministry


iii. Graphs

Graph 1. Sacred Place Availability (Sanctuary and Non-Sanctuary)

This graph shows the availability of the total number of facilities (64 individual spaces distributed among 22 sites) used in

the study. It shows daytime and evening availabilities for weekends and weekdays. The “high” category indicates that the facility is

generally available, the “medium” category indicates the facility is sometimes available, and the “low” category indicates that the

facility is generally not available for outside use, as determined by the faith leadership. As anticipated, most spaces are unavailable on

Sunday days. Note that spaces are generally less available during the week and more available on Fridays and Saturdays.

Graph 2. Spatial Flexibility for Sacred Places

This graph shows the architectural analysis of available spaces

according to the following criteria: flexibility of a performance

area within a room, flexibility of the seating within the room,

and level of iconography and movable furniture. The respective

values were scaled between 1 (low) and 3 (high) and averaged

and categorized accordingly.

Graph 3. Transportation Access

This graph shows the average of good/fair/poor evaluations of

access to public transit and available parking. The parking

data was simplified from the data collection forms.“Good”

indicates parking controlled by the site or a relationship with a

lot. “Fair” indicates a nearby parking lot or on-street parking.

“Poor” indicates a neighborhood location where parking is

more difficult.


Graph 4. Adjustable Lighting Available at Sacred Places

This graph indicates the results of the evaluation of the light-

ing systems available for potential performance use. “Program-

mable” lights indicate a sophisticated lighting control panel

that is capable of being implemented with different “scenes.”

A “dimmer” lighting system indicates lights are only able to be

adjusted from dark to light. “Adjustable” lights are other light-

ing measures that involve some other level of control. Lastly,

the “none” category indicates that the lights are solely linked to

an on-and-off switch.

Graph 5. Sound Systems Available at Sacred Places

This graph indicates whether the sacred spaces have wireless

microphones, static microphones, or no particular micro-

phone system in place.

Graph 6. Sacred Organizations’ Level of Receptivity

This graph represents an index extracted from the following

qualitative questions:

1. How receptive are you and your congregation/com-

munity to welcoming tenants into your buildings? Is

renting your space necessary to your mission and/or

operations?

2. Do you see welcoming other organizations into your

space as part of your mission and ministry to the

community or only as a means to generate revenues?

3. What images or thoughts come to mind when you

think of an artist or an arts organization? What

value(s) do you think artists contribute to the com-

munity and/or to your congregation?

4. What kind(s) of art would you like to see created,

performed, exhibited, or taught in your space? What

kind(s) of art would you not like to see in your space?

5. If you have had tenants other than arts organizations,

what are/were the key contributors to a positive rela-

tionship? What were the things that didn’t work?

6. If you have/have had arts organizations working in

your facility, what were/are the key contributors to a

positive relationship? What were/are the things that

didn’t or continue to work?

The responses to the above questions were scored on a scale

of 1 (low) to 5 (high) based on the interest/motivations/per-

ceptions of the interviewees. Finally, the scores were averaged

on the following scale: 1 = Low Receptivity (Average be-

tween 0-1.25), 2 = Average Receptivity (1.25-2.5), 3 = Good

Receptivity (2.5-3.75), and 4 = High Receptivity (3.75 – 5).


Graph 7. Sacred Organizations’ Level of Vested Interest

This graph represents an index extracted from the following

qualitative questions:

1. What would be your main objectives/reasons for wanting to

open your space to arts organizations and their audiences?

2. Is there a current or past tenant with whom you feel you

have/had a true partnership and, if so, what inspires you to

call it a “partnership”?

3. If you are seeking partners among your tenants, what are

you looking to offer your partners, and what do you wish to

receive in return? Do you have a written outreach plan?

4. How important is it that your congregants understand the

mission and/or financial reasons for welcoming outside

organizations as tenants and as potential partners?

The responses to the above questions were scored on a scale of 1

(low) to 5 (high) based on the interest/motivations/perceptions of the interviewees. Finally, the scores were averaged on the following

scale: 1 = Low Receptivity (Average between 0-1.25), 2 = Average Receptivity (1.25-2.5), 3 = Good Receptivity (2.5-3.75), and 4 =

High Receptivity (3.75 – 5).

Graph 8. Desired Rehearsal/Performance Space Usage Among Arts Organizations

This graph shows the distribution of all arts organizations’ desired facility requests. Organizations indicated desired times for

facility use and this data was plotted according to daytime (9am-5pm) and evening (5pm-10pm) for all seven days of the week.


Graph 9. Ranked Desirable Qualities of Spaces for Arts Organizations

We asked participants to choose the top 4 out of 29 desired technical

features available at a venue. This graph represents the lump sums of the

#1 and #2 priorities ranked by the arts organizations (i.e., four arts

organizations consider “on street parking” a #1 or #2 priority for their venue).

Graph 10. Arts Organizations’ Level of Receptivity

This graph represents an index extracted from the following qualitative questions:

1. How critical is the association with a “home” space to the development of your artistic identity and audiences?

2. How receptive are you and your artistic stakeholders to associating your work with a sacred space and inviting your audiences to a sacred place?

3. Might your association with a faith-based community and space be considered part of your mission, or is it only a means to secure

“affordable” spaces for your work?

4. What images or thoughts come to mind when you think about

“sacred space” or “faith-based community”? What value(s) do

you think faith-based communities might contribute to your community of supporters and audiences?

5. Do you feel that sacred space has the potential to enhance or detract from the experience of your work? Some of the time? All of the time?

6. If you have used (or currently use) a sacred space, what were/are the key contributors to a positive relationship? What were/are the thing that didn’t work?

7. If you are seeing a “home space partner,” what are you looking to offer your partner, and what do

you wish to receive in return?

The responses to the above questions were scored on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high) based on the

interest/motivations/perceptions of the interviewee. Finally, the scores were averaged on

the following scale: 1 = Low Receptivity (Average between 0-1.25), 2 = Average Receptivity

(1.25-2.5), 3 = Good Receptivity (2.5-3.75), and 4 = High Receptivity (3.75 – 5).

Graph 11. Arts Organizations’ Level of Vested Interest This graph represents an index extracted from the following qualitative questions:

1. Do you have a process or procedure for assessing the desirability/appropriateness of potential spaces?

2. What would be your main objectives/reasons for wanting to develop a relationship with a sacred space versus other kinds of performance and program space?

3. Is there a current or past space with which you feel you have/had a true partnership and, if so, what inspires you to call it a

“partnership”?

The responses to the above questions were scored on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high)

based on the interest/motivations/perceptions of the interviewee. Finally, the scores

were averaged on the following scale: 1 = Low Receptivity (Average between 0-1.25),

2 = Average Receptivity (1.25-2.5), 3 = Good Receptivity (2.5-3.75), and 4 = High

Receptivity (3.75 – 5).


Biographies


Thaddeus Squire, Founder and Managing Director, has been hailed as a

“visionary” voice in the contemporary arts by David Patrick Stearns of The

Philadelphia Inquirer. He is a curator, consultant, writer, and producer. His

diverse background has led him to a range of interests from contemporary

curatorial practice to business and entrepreneurship models for cultural

enterprise. From 2000 to 2004, Thaddeus was Artistic and Executive Direc-

tor of the new music organization Relâche in Philadelphia, during which

time he rebuilt the artistic profile of the 20-year-old company. In 2005, he

founded Peregrine Arts, which serves the fine and performing arts and

history/heritage fields with integrated creative, management, and market-

ing services. Thaddeus has served as a consultant, facilitator, and researcher

on a wide variety of projects for such organizations as the Historical Soci-

ety of Pennsylvania, the Chamber Music Society of Lincoln Center (NYC),

The SculptureCenter (NYC), Choral Arts Society of Philadelphia, Kennett

Symphony of Chester County, Ars Nova Workshop, and the Greater

Philadelphia Tourism and Marketing Corporation. Most recently he was

the recipient of Philadelphia City Paper’s “Big Vision Issue Choice Awards

2009” for his work as originator and producer of Hidden City Philadelphia,

a new arts and heritage festival that was launched in May 2009 to wide

critical and public appeal. The festival drew over 10,000 visitors to under-

known heritage sites throughout the city, interpreted through installations

by leading contemporary artists of multiple disciplines. It later won

“Best Gathering of 2009” from Philebrity.com. In early 2010, he converted

the organization of Peregrine Arts into Hidden City Philadelphia with the

mission to continue the festival. At the same time, he formed a separate

nonprofit management and facilitation company, CultureWorks

Greater Philadelphia, to continue and build on the consulting work of the

former Peregrine Arts.

Shawn Evans, AIA, Architectural Consultant, is an associate with Atkin

Olshin Schade Architects of Philadelphia, PA, and Santa Fe, NM, where he

leads the firm’s historic preservation and cultural projects. He has been

with the firm for 15 years. Notable Philadelphia projects completed under

his leadership include restoration and/or preservation of Mother Bethel

A.M.E Church, Arch Street United Methodist Church, Shiloh Baptist

Church, the University of Pennsylvania Museum, Fort Mifflin, and Eastern

State Penitentiary. In the southwest, Shawn has taken leadership roles

on projects at Fort Apache, AZ; Fort Stanton, NM; and Ohkay Owingeh

Pueblo, NM. He is the co-chair of AIA Philadelphia’s Historic Preservation

Committee and sits on the Architectural Committee of the Philadelphia

Historical Commission. For the last eight years, he has volunteered as an

architectural and historic preservation advisor for the Friends of the Boyd,

the non-profit organization working to save and restore Philadelphia’s last

movie palace, the art deco Boyd/Sameric Theatre. Mr. Evans is a frequent

speaker on historic preservation, including several workshops for Partners

for Sacred Places and numerous presentations at national conferences,

most recently the 2011 Saving Places Conference in Denver, CO. He is the

recipient of the 2004 AIA Philadelphia Young Architect Award and the

2011 James Marston Fitch Foundation Mid-Career Grant.

David Bradley, Principal Consultant, is a Philadelphia-based theater

director, arts educator, and consultant. He is Artistic Director of the

National Constitution Center’s “Living News,” now in its fifth season of

dramatizing current constitutional issues. A long-time company member

at People’s Light and Theatre in Malvern, David has directed more than

30 productions there and for four years was Associate Artistic Director,

jointly leading its nationally recognized arts education programs.

People’s Light productions include The Adventures of Tom Sawyer,

Gossamer, Doubt, The Crucible, The Giver, Young Lady From Rwanda,

A View From the Bridge, The Diary of Anne Frank, and Holes. He has

directed frequently at Indiana Repertory Theatre and Philadelphia

Young Playwrights and has also directed at Children’s Theatre Company.

His play What’s Now, What’s Next? was commissioned by Scholastic, Inc.

and the National Constitution Center as part of their exploration of youth

civic engagement. David is co-founder of the non-profit LiveConnections.

org, which creates music programs for youth at Philadelphia’s acclaimed

World Cafe Live. He has been a consulting artist for the Animating

Democracy Initiative of Americans for the Arts, the Pew Center for Arts

and Heritage, and The Reinvestment Fund. David’s arts education work

has included collaborations with the Rosenbach Museum, Spiral Q Puppet

Theater, Art-Reach, and numerous urban, suburban, and special-needs

schools across the region. He has led panels on art and civic dialogue in the

U.S. and Mexico, is President of the Board of Philadelphia’s Shakespeare in

Clark Park and a board member of LiveConnections.org. He’s a graduate

of Yale University.

Marcel Williams Foster, Manager of Operations and Coworking,

incorporates a scientific and artistic background by providing database

research and analysis for cultural organizations. He was the first student

to graduate from the University of Minnesota/Guthrie Theater Actor

Training Program with a double major (BFA, Acting, BA Summa

cum laude, Anthropology) and received over a dozen awards for his

interdisciplinary research, including the Sullivan Scholarship, as well as

a Rhodes Scholarship Nomination. He worked as a Teacher’s Assistant

for the Department of Theater as well as a Research Assistant for

Doctoral Projects with the Jane Goodall Institute Center for Primate

Studies, for which he conducted an independent project in Gombe

National Park, Tanzania, for six months. This research culminated

in publications featured in the American Journal of Primatology (2008,

2009), Theater Topics Journal, and Nature. Since finishing college,

Marcel served as the Development Intern for Hubbard Street Dance

Chicago and as Education Coordinator for Lincoln Park Zoo’s Center

for the Study and Conservation of Apes. He has produced/directed

several shows that have won critical acclaim (from The Philadelphia

Inquirer, City Paper, and The Art Blog), performed with several theaters

and dance companies (Pig Iron Theater, Guthrie Theater, and the

Simba Theater International, Tanzania), and won a Post-Baccaulaureate

Fellowship to study with the Headlong Performance Institute.

X. APPENDIX

i. Next Steps

In addition to the core imple


Sarah Kelly, Database Management Intern, is a graduate of Bennington

College, where she earned her Bachelor’s of Liberal Arts degree with

concentrations in Literature and Printmaking. Her thesis focused on the

ordering of memory after loss, and her final printmaking work in abstract

photopolymer gravure is now a part of the college’s permanent collection.

She has exhibited work in California and Vermont and now works in a

gallery in Philadelphia. Her interest in how art and historic objects are

ordered and placed within a larger context led her to intern at The Library

Company of Philadelphia. During her time with this organization, she

built several databases that captured multiple cataloguing systems and

serviced new online research initiatives for general public access.

Vanessa dela Torre, Architectural Intern, completed her undergraduate

degree at Pennsylvania State University at University Park. She received the

Paestum Workshop Charette Prize and conducted a semester-length study

of architecture and development in Rome, where she contributed designs

to an archaeological site. Upon completing her Bachelors of Architecture,

Vanessa’s senior thesis was granted the Paul Kossmann Design Award, an

externally juried award. Since this time, she has earned a real estate license,

interned for KTH Architects in DuBois (PA), and entered her first year

of graduate school at The University of Pennsylvania, pursuing a Master of

Science in Historic Preservation focusing on

adaptive reuse of buildings.

Rie Yamakawa, Architectural Intern, hails from Peru and contributed to

studies in historic preservation for sites in Philadelphia, Viterbo (Italy),

Las Vegas, and Tepe Hissar (Iran). While at school at the University of

Las Vegas, she reregistered the school’s architectural slide library and

assisted the Gensler Design firm with innovative drawing techniques.

Now as a graduate student in the University of Pennsylvania’s School of

Design (Conservation Science in Historic Preservation), Rie specializes in

architectural archaeology and site analysis. She received several prestigious

awards, among them honors from the Association of Women in

Architecture the Natural Museum and Interpretative Center Design Center,

and membership in the Phi Theta Kappa International Honour Society.

References

Amsterdam, Peggy (2008). Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance 2008 Portfolio

Burd, Nancy and Hill, Joe. (2003) Building from the Inside Out: An Evaluation of the Philadelphia Dance Community’s Infrastructure

Needs. Nonprofit Finance Fund & AEA Consulting

2920 Cambridge Street

Philadelphia, PA 19130

[email protected]

www.cultureworksphila.org

T: 267 597 2803

F: 267 597 3811

1700 Sansom Street, 10th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

[email protected]

www.sacredplaces.org

T: 215 567 3234

F: 215 567 3235

Documents

Making Homes for Arts in Sacred Places