This interview is part of a series conducted by the FRH Young Professionals and Researchers Working Group with experts in religious heritage, which will serve as the groundwork for preparing a series of recommendations on how to bridge the generation gap in the sector.
This interview with Lidy Meijers, Professor of Heritage & Architecture at the Faculty of Architecture of TU Delft, was conducted by Pelagia Spyridonidou, Architect Engineer (TU Delft)
1) What are the first steps a young researcher / professional should take to reach European institutions and other relevant stakeholders?
After graduation the diplomas are there and the career starts. That means in many cases that experience isn’t there yet, but the ideas and the motivation is on a high level. The first thing to do is to find and get a place where you as a young professional can develop. The other thing is to work together with others, in regional until international networks. To participate in the discussion in our professional field of Heritage & Architecture via the professional and academic platforms, like docomomo, WAT, ICOMOS, Archined, etc. For institutions like Docomomo as a student you can participate at workshops, for WAT there is an institute where you can participate as a student. To get in contact with them it is quite formal, it is trial and error. That is why for me it is important to always introduce the people that are with me so that my students have contact; but that is more of a personal thing.
2) From your observations, what resources or support systems (academic institutions or otherwise) do you think are most beneficial for young professionals entering the field of religious heritage?
In The Netherlands there is the institute of ‘Stimuleringsfonds voor Architectuur’ and that is an institute to develop innovations or ideas, not specific for heritage. In a professional field for young graduates there is hardly a network or institution. ‘All comes together in The Netherlands in a big basket’. (when you graduate everyone is an architect; there is not a network, we hardly do that, therefore I was very enthusiastic for your initiative to set up a network)
After graduation there is the NRP Master award and the award for a graduation plan for circularity. The first one is specific for renovation, renewal and conservation, and the second one is mainly for reused materials or areas. An academic institution is as far as I know not there, not for religious heritage or any other specific field in heritage.
3) In your view, what specific areas of professional development or training do you consider essential for those entering this field? And how do you see mentorship with established professionals/experts as a contributing factor to the career advancement of young professionals in religious heritage?
Mentorship could be a good development, for continuing the knowledge and the skills necessary for religious heritage. In order to facilitate though the mentorship it would be good to set up a network. I believe the motivation is there from both sides – the experts and the young professionals.
Regarding professional development from the perspective of an architect/designer firstly, motivation, knowledge and design skills are necessary, not to design a lot, but to have a critical attitude towards changes and development; what is necessary to do in religious heritage. Sometimes changes have an impact on the spatial qualities, and on the other hand by the use of buildings during the day, week or season. The question can be about acceptance of what is necessary; a coat and adapting to the building or changing the building to the comfort of people? Some elements in heritage are quite a niche.
4) Have you collaborated with or mentored young professionals in religious heritage? If yes, what were the outcomes and lessons learned?
As a professor at the Faculty of Architecture in TU Delft, I can talk from the perspective of the architect. With students I have worked by developing and changing existing building complexes of the cloisters in Waasmunster in Belgium and one in Maarsen in The Netherlands. Both cloisters were designed by the Plastic number of Dom Hans van der Laan. The outcomes have taught me that these two cloisters had a lot of possibilities in their ‘oversize’ or extra spaciousness. Students developed according to the Plastic number, and some did not. These outcomes, these designs, gave me the insight that the Plastic number can give starting points for a dialogue of the existing and new. But all students had to find out what the existing structure was, and how it was built. This curiosity of the existing is essential for making an adaptive design, a redesign.
For me, in the framework of the studios, it would be nice to work with other disciplines, such as technology and economics (the numbers are there); testing for instance how flexible the new scenario would be, for how long it can work, and the logistics of these elements. That is something that I didn’t see in these projects and I believe is an important part of conversation.
5) What do you believe are the current gaps or deficiencies in the support provided to young professionals in the religious heritage sector?
There is no network or institute specific for young professionals in heritage, or even religious heritage. Some offices hold meetings of young talents, but that is not open to everyone, and is general from architectural building historians till engineers/architects. Every year there is a selection of a young talent in heritage, but that is not transparent (how/why/what) although it is a good initiative.
Another interesting case, is the foundation Week van het Lege Gebouw focusing on how to develop vacant buildings along with the students. With this organization we have organized several workshops. These were a week or in a row of 3-5 days for students of Applied universities and universities to develop within that short time a plan from the different disciplines for a vacant building. That vacant building was also the place where we held the workshop. The foundation’s board consists of people from various backgrounds offering multiple perspectives. This initiative could be an interesting way to introduce future young professionals to the actual field.
6. Have you observed any promising emerging trends or approaches in religious heritage preservation that young professionals should be aware of or involved in? (Add on question)- Looking towards the future, what changes or advancements do you anticipate in the field of religious heritage, and how can young professionals be positioned to adapt and thrive in this evolving landscape?
One and a half years ago there was a competition by the governmental architect about 3-5 churches. There were some interesting approaches, for climate design, landscape and adaptation by people.
Many churches become vacant and H&A (faculty of Architecture and the build environment TU Delft) has every year a course for the redesign of churches. That redesign has every time similar questions and solutions in it; additions/technological changes/minimizing the spaces/adding functions for the community from living till working and relaxing) The architectural solutions are; adding (contrast or analogue or in line with the existing), internal change and using existing spaces for the new functions in a logical way, opening up and densifying spaces, adding internally.
Young professionals can position themselves by questioning the question of religious heritage. In some religions a new function for the church is not allowed and demolition is the solution, but that is not future-thinking in the current societal way; reuse of the existing and keeping the energy/CO2 that is in it. These calculations are part of it, of the re-design. Next to the needs in society for housing, and next to the significance of a religious building for a neighbourhood/city a young professional needs to develop the concepts of a business case, the technological case and the architectural case. So therefore to work in groups and with different disciplines is essential.
7) From your perspective, what steps can organisations or institutions take to create more opportunities for young professionals to engage in meaningful work in religious heritage preservation and management?
‘Reuse never demolish’, the quote of Lacaton Vassal, should be the start of every project nowadays, next to all the principles that religious organisations have. To talk and have discussions with these organisations of religions. Existing buildings are in many cases a number, a figure in euros, in their administration. The significance of other values in society needs to be discussed with them. This discussion can be done by young professionals, with mentors present perhaps, in a multi-disciplinary team. The most important step in general is the change of the narrative and the shift of the mentality towards maintaining what is already there and reusing it; organisations and institutions have to work towards that direction.
8) How can young professionals benefit from international collaboration and interdisciplinary perspectives, particularly considering the global nature of religious heritage? Furthermore, what opportunities do you see emerging for such collaborative efforts?
The benefit of international working together can be the different perspectives of heritage agencies, and committees. To learn from each other about different cases and possibilities for the heritage of religious buildings. To develop together a body of knowledge. This means also that different approaches can be shared and used in different circumstances. These different circumstances relate to the values in a specific society, or specific region.
9) Reflecting on your own career journey, what advice or guidance would you offer to young professionals aspiring to make an impact in the religious heritage sector?
Reflecting on my own career journey so far, I would offer a meeting, perhaps with a workshop to make designs in teams for ‘difficult’ religious heritage projects.
Follow us: