| |
 |
|
Home About the Adath Shiurim About our Rabbi Nursery Timetable Membership Divrei Torah Links Contact |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
EAYC Forum on use of the main davening area
Forum responses are below Robert Curtis says: I think it is important to have totally flexible and loose seating. I have found shuls with fixed pews become stale and also as a vibrant and young community it is important for us to have space which remains very flexible now and in the future so we can use it for a range events and not just for davening. I am very against any fixed pews. Jason Ozin says: One of the unique features of our beautiful new Shul is the main area and its flexibility. I have attended two events in this area. The first was the lunch we held for Matan's barmitzvah. We comfortably sat 160 people using the existing tables and chairs and were able to rearrange the layout of the room, including moving the Bimah, during Kiddush in 15 mins. Likewise we were able to return the room, set up for Shabbas Mincha, having swept the floor, in a similar time. The simcha was really very special and the room lent itself to the event beautifully. We could not have sat the same number of people downstairs. The second special event was the Kander Chupah. Here again the Shul was completely rearranged and the Bimah moved. The Chupah was very elegantly laid out as it was in this special space and the sense of simcha very obvious. Add to this a fantastic Simchas Torah we held last year due to the flexibility of that room. As a community we have invested a lot of our own time and money into this new project and for us to remove the flexibility from our new building will be nothing short of short-sighted. Another unique feature of our shul is the Shteibel like arrangement of tables for davening. It is lovely to daven from a table and sets our shul apart from the other United and Federation institutions where pews are the norm. To add pews to what is already a very formal space would make us feel like just another British shul and thus would remove one of our unique features always commented on by visitors. I would say that the existing tables are more than sufficient for our needs. They fold away very easily and are light and flexible. Adding different tables, especially ones with storage is unnecessary and will make it much harder to remove tables from the room and may also cause people to reserve spaces which is not our way of doing things. Thankfully we have many young members and thus over 200 Barmitzvahs & Batmitzvahs coming up. To deny them the use of this flexible space would be sad. Likewise, to deny members the use of the space midweek similarly would be wrong. The extra income from such a space would adequately ensure that the Shul could be redecorated annually and provide profit on top. Thus there are no "wear and tear" issues. We are a vibrant growing community that needs a vibrant flexible Shul. I hope members are able to see the advantages for the community. At the very least this gives us the option of revisiting again in a few years. Thank you for reading this far. Michael Roodyn says: Advantage Pews would be quieter than the chairs, which must have an adverse effect on the flooring. Pews could seat more people, 4 instead of 3? Disadvantage Storage when not in use. Potential loss of revenue if fixed, though once EJPS comes on stream this will be a lesser problem. Tables create, I guess a "yeshivish" ruach that I like. Pews would be traditional synagogue furniture. We must be different from other shuls and the furniture must reflect the shul. These is not an easy one to resolve and if I ever have further thoughts I'll come back to you! Jonny Dickson says: The current layout lends itself to a wonderful atmosphere during davening and allows us to use the space more creatively. My view is that pews would increase the sense of formality and be damaging to the atmosphere. Alex Portnoy says: I would like to set out the case for using the main prayer area as a mokom tefilla only and for fixed pews to be installed. There was a suggestion when we first moved into the new building that weekday tefillos should be held in the beis hamedrash. This was turned done by the regular mispallellim on the basis that a) it is too small b) we had just spend £1.2m on building a beautiful shul only to cram ourselves into a room on which very little money had been spent c) the tefillos were enhanced by the atmosphere in the main shul. The same applies to those rare occasions when we need to vacate the shul for building works. I for one would not like to have to davven downstairs on more and more occasions because the main shul is being used for some function or other. It was suggested that the main area needs to be used as a function hall as the Jacqueline Donoff Hall is not as large and in any case is used by the Shul Nursery during the week so that weekday functions cannot be held there. We have been informed recently that EJPS have now obtained funding and are moving towards building their new school. It was also announced this will include three classrooms to serve as our shul nursery and we will also have use of their hall as per the original agreement between the shul and the school. Therefore within the medium term the problems associated with the nursery s use of the Jacqueline Donoff hall will not exist and members will have a choice of two halls for functions without disturbing the main davvening area. Now let us turn to the seating arrangements. At present the moveable mechitzah is only in place for shabbos (and Yom Tov) mornings) the rest of the time it is removed as there are (bli ayin hara) large minyanim. It is evident that the shul is not big enough for the numbers that attend. Having pews (whether fixed or not) wll increase the capacity in the main area by about 40 seats. This alone should be reason to change from tables. Although there are lockers in the shul there are not enough for every member. If pews were installed then these would have boxes for members to place their talasim and seforim. As to whether these should be fixed or not, if you have every sat in a row of unfixed pews you will know that there is always a push/pull situation so I would suggest that these be fixed. If we do not need to use the main area for anything other than a mokom tefilla then there is no need to have moveable pews. Leaving aside for a moment the question of the seating in the main shul, let us address the use of this mokom kodosh. We are very fortunate that our building has many uses during the week for members and their children. This can, however, have a familiarity breeds contempt effect in that people do not give due respect to the main Shul area when it is being used for tefillah. The Rav alluded to this in his recent drasha. This problem existed to a major degree when we were in the old building as that was also school to many of our children. It currently manifests itself in many different ways on shabbos and yom tov. I believe that opening up the main prayer area for use for semachos will detract from the kedusha even further and people will not treat it with appropriate reverence. Adam Gersch says: Having visited a number of minyonim, the current layout of our shul is ideal for a number of reasons: Aesthetically - the current tables have a low visual profile and convey a sense of space, modernity and an atmosphere which is suited to the new building. This may be lost with pews or storage seating. Atmosphere - pews or heavier seats are very formal and serious. The tables help to enhance the friendly welcoming nature of the shul. There is a sense of being 'closer to the action' without being hidden behind heavy furniture, and the current set-up encourages better decorum. Practical - the flexible use of the space is a huge advantage in a growing comminuty with large simchas (including our own) planned. Pews or heavy furniture creates an obstacle for flexible use of the space, potential revenue. Such furniture can be difficult to size correctly with a suitable weight and can cause more disturbance with people having to get up to let others into a row. Current seats are comfortable and define the personal space well. Ethos - the yeshiva style of tables send out a message that this is a young and learning community rather than an older tired one! Between services, it is easy to turn around a chair and engage in some learning. Cost - money could be better spent elsewhere and pews can require expensive maintenance. If the floor is a concern, I would recommend that some permanent chair leg caps are installed rather than stick-on felt which does come off. Overall I have strong sense that the current set-up is a good one and that we should not be in any rush to change it. Lastly - thank you to our excellent committee for setting up this forum and seeking and to involve the whole community in its decision-making. Sharon Kleinberg says: I would favour the option of moveable pews. This would be the best of all worlds. It would provide a comfortable place to daven & keep seforim, whilst maintaining flexibility to use the room differently for Smachot, etc. Michael Lewis says: I think the current set up is fine. It allows flexibility for Simchat Torah dancing for example and I feel that fixed pews would very much limit space. Steven Berkman says: I think that the main davening space is also a beautiful place for a simcha function, able to accomodate many more people than our current hall and is much more attractive than the current hall for a simcha. The current hall can only seat about 110 people and there is no space for dancing. I believe that the current layout of the shul fits all the community's needs perfectly. Many shuls use the main davening space also for functions (eg Ner Yisrael). To prevent our community from having a wonderful simcha hall (in the main davening space) would be a great pitty and short sighted in my view. I think that the current layout of chairs and tables serves all our needs very well. I also think that the use of the hall for simchas would be a source of income for the shul. Gavin Ucko says: I feel really strongly that we should NOT have any sort of fixed seating. The first months in the new building have shown what an amazing atmosphere we can create - exceptionally conducive to kavannah-filled davening. The flexibility of what we have also leads to the ability to have dancing with real ruach on Simchat Torah and at other times. Think as well about the way in which the seating also changed for the Chanukat Habayit and how effective that was - we could not have achieved the sense of occasion in the same way with fixed pews. As far as uses of the hall are concerned - I know that there are people who object strongly to the suggestion of the shul being used for simchas, but I disagree. Providing the running of the event is appropriate (and it always would be in our shul) then make the most of a location to add to the simcha. Why can't we have a simcha - or a siyyum there - just because people are eating there, it doesn't mean that the room will be damaged - and in fact the room would still be filled with Divrei Torah. There is however one more point that I wish to make, which I have not heard mentioned so far. Within the next two years, as a community, we will be fortunate enough to be celebrating Bar and Bat Mitzvahs every few weeks. Unfortunately, and through nobody's fault, the Jacqueline Donoff Hall is not big enough to accommodate a simcha with full-blown dancing. If we make the Makom Tephillah available for Simchas to the shul's own members, it will present a much larger area which can accommodate all elements of the simcha, whilst also providing members with an affordable and beautiful place to host a simcha. We have been really blessed with an amazing and sizable Makom Tephillah - let's make every possible bit of (appropraite) use of it - and keep everything flexible in the process. Sam Fyne says: I agree for the most part with Alex Portnoy's suggestions with one or two reservations. I have no strong objection to movable pews as long as they are as sturdy a construction as fixed ones and include boxed ledges. As to the configuration of the future seating arrangements I strongly suggest that the pews on each side of the bimah are so sited as they go across the width of the shul rather than the length. In my view this would allow four blocks of rows of at least five seats on each side with an aisle in the centre and one at each side. The present seating arrangement is uncomfortable and a backward step. As for the view of other opinions that have been put forward about not wanting the shul to be like others shuls, it is already distinctly unconventional in that the shape of the building with the aron at one side instead of at one end of the building as is in the vast majority of shuls. Colin Richman says: I'm broadly with Alex. I feel we will compromise the traditions of the kehilla and the qualities of our shul as a beautiful makom tefilla if we allow for a multi-purpose use for semachot etc. We can now count on the use of the hall and other facilities now that the redevelopment of 261 Hale Lane is moving closer as a reality. This was key to our decision as a shul to commit to the new site ownership arrangements. Our biggest challenge is lack of seating; we're already at near full capacity. We need to allow for some further growth, and even more importantly to ensure that our children can have the experience and incalculable chinuch benefits of being able to daven alongside their parents in shul as they grow up, pre youth service years and beyond. The chairs and tables have been fine up to a point, but are not the most efficient use of space. Also, the current seating in the ground floor ezrat nashim is not acceptable to the ladies who use it. They cannot be expected to continue without tables or bookrests, and again this has space implications. Using some sort of modular seating at least in part will provide badly needed extra spaces. They don't have to be fixed pews bolted into the floor. I'm sure we can source some sort of contemporary "seating and shtender" modular system, ideally with lockable wheels which would give flexibility for occasions such as hoshanot, hakafot and chuppot. It would also be nice to be able again to store a tallit and seforim at our seats. Jamie Feinmesser says: I believe that having any sort of pews would really restrict us. Firstly pews are generally less comfortable, secondly it would mean that we wouldn't be able to use the shul area for other functions e.g. the Kumzitz, which was amazing and would not have been the same if it was in the Jacqueline Donoff Hall. Having movable pews will still be a problem as they would need to be stored somewhere if they were moved and would not fold away in the same way that tables do and stack like chairs do. Finally, there is no makom tefilla that I can think of that has been enhanced by pews. In fact most shuls that have pews and an alternative minyan that does not have pews, it is the alternative minyan that is generally more succesful with respect to being a makom tefilla. Rafi Youngerwood says: I really like the current layout. The only comment I would say is that if we could get thinner tables then some rows would have more room as at present it can be quite hard to stand up for the Amidah and quite easy to hit the table behind you when you do stand up. I am not too bothered with the question about the shul being used for other purposes other than to say that my opinion would be to only use it for major occasions ie big simchas so that it is still seen and used primarily as a makom tefilla. David Stern says: For those of us associated with the shul project, this subject has been one of the few sources of disagreement throughout its development, so I humbly submit my personal take on the ‘pew issue’. In responding to your email, I am asking myself, why do I get such a buzz everytime I enter the synagogue, and what gives me such pleasure as I let my eyes wander during the services ?? Is it primarily attributable to the ambience generated by the structure and it’s décor, or does the warm informality have a part to play ?? If so, then perhaps the essential functionality of the current seating arrangements may well be part of that attraction. I have heard so much positive comment from people attending/visiting our shul, often from people who had no knowledge of my involvement, which apart from the ‘nachas’ aspect, suggest to me that we have done much that is right. I would be unhappy to see that altered for the worse. For me, whilst I am sympathetic to those who want a ‘proper’ seat, and whilst accepting the argument that pews would allow for more seats, I would not wish to alter the status quo. I also believe that the shul can readily double up as a beautiful simcha hall, as recently evidenced at a barmitsva and chupa. This option, together with the potential to generate income, would be lost with the introduction of pews, fixed or otherwise. I just love the basic simplicity of the current set up. David Cowan says: The successful use of this space for a number of smachot and communal functions demonstrates both our community's need for a large multi-purpose venue and that this room has the capacity to deliver it. Limiting the use of this space with any type of pew will restrict our community's ability to operate and grow. Three additional thoughts: - In recognising that space is an issue, are pews the only option to increase capacity? Surely narrower stackable chairs and/or tables with less depth might lead to the same outcome. - If our decision is informed by the use of an external communal venue, such as the new EJPS school hall, can we not wait until the venue becomes a working reality before permanently modifying our current space? - Who will pay for the proposed pews? Should we not reduce our current debt before embarking on more building costs? Max Braunold says: Let me address the use of the Shul Hall first. It was always understood that the redevelopment of 261, Hale Lane for the new EJPS would enable members to make use of a new school hall for semachot/large kiddushim. This hall would be larger than the Jacqueline Donoff Hall. Other Facilities in the school would also provide extra space for our children's services on shabbatot and Yomim Tovim freeing up the Jacqueline Donoff Hall from such pressure when it is used by different people for different purposes back to back. Also in the fullness of time when the EAYC Nursery move across to 261 Hale Lane, the Jacqueline Donoff Hall will be available for mid-week hire providing additional revenue for the Shul. For the above reasons, I don't believe it is appropriate to use our Makom Tefillah for semachot when alternatives will be on our doorstep in the near future. Other reasons why we should protect our beautiful Shul from becoming a 'simcha hall' are: Health and Safety - the kitchen is too far from the Shul hall for transporting food (hot/cold) back and forth and the stairs present a real risk of G-d forbid accidents occurring Shul Floor - many of the wooden floor blocks will loosen with heavy usage of the floor over time causing damage to the floor resulting in high maintenance costs. With regard to seating, my view is that we should keep the existing tables just replacing the 3 in front of the bimah with narrower tables. We can accommodate at least another 30 chairs around the Shul when required. Permanent pews will limit flexibility on use of floor space ie for a chuppah and moveable pews gain us nothing when the space is required as there is nowhere to store/stack them. We should look to purchase some narrow tables in the ezrat nashim section behind the flexible mechitza although this would limit seating capacity. Finally, we need to address somehow the question of members having their own makom kavua as this is becoming a problem! Martin Moser says: Initially I would have gone for fixed pews. However after half a year with the tables in the main davening area I changed my views 100% and am now in favour of the present arrangement. Of course, and ideally, I would be in favour of tables with some kind of shelf. This however would preclude easy folding and storage unless someone out there knows of suitable tables that fit my description. One advantage of tables is that should there be a very large simcha on a shabbos morning then the removal of 3-4 tables would free space for at least 24-30 chairs and cater for many visitors. If we remain with tables I think we could do with better quality furniture than the present ones. Naturally the rationale of having tables is that the whole davening area can be cleared for simchas and chuppas. Martin Steinhart says: I concur with both Alex & Max. Yes it would be nice to have infinite flexibility, but the building dimensions and layout preclude that possibility. If we attempt try to accommodate for every exception we will be unable to address the most pressing concern which is having a makom tefillah to seat our ever growing numbers. To that end we need put aside emotion and be pragmatic. The current table & chair layout for 3 seats across measures 1.2metre deep and 3.6mt wide. The ladies pews for the same number of seats is 0.91mt deep & 3.0mt wide. Replicating the pew layout in the men's section gives a 52% additional utilisation of floor area. If we wish to reduce that we could make wider siles or even leave the mechitzah curtain up permanently. Barry Kleinberg says: I really like the tables and chairs as they are set out now. Personally I find it more comfortable for davening and learning and feel that we rarely need more seats than are currently available with the set up as it is. Pews are rarely comfortable and make davening, in my experience, difficult (less leg room) and too "churchy". Motti Gavzey says: I believe it is best to have flexible seating for now. I recommend that the shul organizes a clear-up team of say three people who expect to be paid probably 20 pounds per hour if they have to work say 3 hours between 11pm and 2am. This exrtra £180 or more will have to be included in the hire charge. Michael White says: Due respect to others' opinions notwithstanding, I must question the notion of pews being representative of "British Shuls". A tiyul around shuls in Europe, America and even Bnei B'rak will confirm this not to be the case. As has been mentioned by others, the fact of the school, in time, offering the facility of a handsome function hall, all but eliminates the argument for the shul to serve the dual purpose. Coupled with the current (and presumably future) need for increased seating, seems to me to strengthen the case for fixed pews. Naomi Feinmesser says: I think that the shul as it is with no fixed pews gives a more friendly and welcoming atmosphere. It is a very bright and airy room, and pews could make it more 'stuffy'. If it is a question of providing more seats, on both a daily and general weekly basis there is probably no need for more seats, and therefore pews would just make the shul more squashed with no gain. When there is a simcha or a Yomtov, the current layout lends itself to increasing capacity by simply adding more chairs and just taking away tables if need be. Having sat in the women's section where there are pews, I feel that they are not particularly spacious, and you have to stand up and move when somebody wants to enter or leave the row, which can be disruptive. If more seats are needed, would it not be possible to simply purchase thinner, stackable tables? Charles Morrison says: I support keeping the tables as at present for all the reasons given by other people. Tables are more flexible and friendly, and more comfortable. Michael White adds: I'm sure one and all (OK then, not ALL, but efshe one person) may have noticed that I wasn't at the Adas last Shabbes morning. I went to Kinloss - I urge anyone who has the opportunity should go and take a look at the Persian Shul on the top floor. Admittedly no expense has been spared (you can be sure the sale of a good few hundred carpets financed what they have done there!) but it's really worth looking at. The shape is similar to the Adas and I challenge anyone who says that their seating arrangement in any way detracts from the most sincerest mode of prayer and togetherness. I only suggest visiting that shul so that that one might be in a better position to form a more balanced and informed view. David Gabb says: Like Martin I thought that pews would be best, but I've changed my mind and prefer tables. However to make the shul totally flexible, in the same way as Ner, would be terrible and I don't believe that it would give us what people think it will. A shul should be a shul and I can't see why tables and seats cannot be fixed in such a way that they could be removed for such puposes as a chupa, if the majority think having a chupa in our shul is important (which I don't). Gary Silverman says: Financially, the current situation works best. The room can be used to maximum advantage. However, it is a shame that we do not have somewhere to leave a siddur, tallis or tephilin. It is a shame that the seating is more squashed than it needs to be. Also, a shul is not simply a room - it is a place where we should sense Hashem's presence. Today, there is a strong move away from formalistic prayer but, by doing so, we lose the perception that a shul is where one stands in the presence of Hashem. In my experience, where shuls are multipurpose venues, people do not treat them with the respect they deserve. I know this view goes against the grain. I think moveable pews with storage would therefore be the best solution. On the one hand, they would allow members somewhere to keep a siddur and tallis; seating would be less squashed; one would have somewhere to rest one's siddur/chumash while standing; and it would lend itself to kavanah and yiras Hashem. On the other hand, it would allow the room to be used for dancing and/or other arrangements. Howard Cohen says: I strongly believe that the main shul should have pews i.e. fixed seating for all in order to give the shul a feeling of permanency and dignity. If there is a strong opinion in favour of seating at tables then there should be an area at the rear of the shul designated for this. I also believe that there should be boxes (to be purchased) for both men and women to store their belongings. Dudley Rogg says: Clearly, the dilemma is not helped by the fact that there are clear pros and cons to both options. On balance, though, I am minded to make our priority to optimise it as a (very beautiful) SHUL, not a function hall or multi-purpose room. We already have one of those and one day, another even bigger one will come on stream, PG. The biggest problem I have with the tables, as great as they clearly are for convenience and comfort, is that predictably, as with the old place, the demonstrated temptation is to squeeze in 'just one more' row. For those of us who are NOT vertically challenged, it is an unimaginable pain to try standing-up and sitting-down repeatedly when there is no room to move one's chair back. Add to that the inexplicable inability of people to do so without dragging the chair noisily on the floor and we have that cacophony at each such manoeuvre. On the assumption that it is NOT going to happen that we can remove a row of tables, I would therefore lean in favour of pews which, today, can be supremely comfortable, allow passage for latecomers (ahem!) and incorporate shtenders and boxes. Just let whoever designs it remember that some of us are in excess of 6 feet in height and thus attached to long legs. Let's use the Ozin or White families as templates! Alan Tapnack says: I support the mokem tefillah argument and I am sure that a suitable plan for removal of certain pews to accommodate a chuppah is possible. This view is supported on the fact that we will have the use of a larger hall within the now foreseeable future at the school and I consider that three halls is more than we need. The dedication of the shul itself to tefillah follows. Jonny Feinmesser says: I see this a two seperate debates. 1. The use of the hall as a makom tefillah only or multi purpose. 2. The best seating arrangements for the shul. Clearly one cannot have a multi purpose room without flexible seating so it needs to be the first point discussed. However even if it is decided to not have a flexible room, the debate re: pews or tables remains valid. My personal view is that the current layout of the shul (i.e. chairs and tables) is warm and welcoming and should be maintained. In terms of the use of the room, I have time for both arguments and do not have a strong opinion either way. Danny Weil says: I am firmly of the opinion that flexible seating is the best option. I would also like to see the main shul area used more for simchas as it is a far more attractive area than the hall. With this possibility more simchas would come to our shul thereby increasing revenue, which would more than cover the necessary maintenance of the main davening area. In additon we should remember that the possibility exists for the tables to be removed in the event of a simchah on a Shabbos when there are likely to be many guests, as we used to do in the old building. There would be a limit as to how much increased seating could be provided if fixed pews were fitted. Nicole Ozin says: I strongly believe we should leave the Shul the way it is with moveable, stackable tables for the following reasons: 1. The Adath has always enjoyed a "shtiebel" style of davening and the tables reflect this. The new Shul building already looks "church-like" - by introducing pews it will look even more so. 2. Today's Shul communities need flexibility - to remove this would be taking a large step backwards and we need to be looking forwards. 3. Regarding the arguement of the use of the new hall when EJPS builds, has anyone ever looked at a primary school hall? It is completely different to that of a secondary school hall which always has a separate gym. A primary school hall has permanent PE equipment attached to at least 2 if not 3 of its walls. It usually has fixed netball/basketball nets at either end and permanent football and/or netball markings on the floor. Not exactly conducive to a simcha. Simmy Stemmer says: I am broadly in favour of fixed and/or moveable pews, however the decision should be delayed until such time that we have evaluated the situation after the nursery has moved to EJPS building and we have midweek use of the Jacqueline Donoff hall and EJPS facilities. Ivor Newman says: I would remind everyone that it looks quite likely that the new school building is going ahead soon. As I understand it, the hall of the new school will be available to us for simchas. Therefore on balance I come down on the side of those who prefer to reserve the main shul area as a mokom tefillah. We take care to remind people not to bring food into the main shul hall now, imagine the damage that would be caused if regular food related events were held there. I quite like the type of seating that we have at the moment. It preserves the stible atmosphere of the shul and allows for a degree of flexibility for shiurum, weddings etc. I do think that more effort should be made to muffle the sond made when chairs are moved...... socks perhaps. Jeremy Leighton says: Like a number of others, I was originally in favour of fixed pews but have moderated this view. However I don't agree that the current arrangements are the best. We have created a beautiful makon tefila but it is degraded by the seating arrangements. I think the atmosphere would be enhanced by having the 2 sides facing each other rather than all facing the Aron Kodesh. As has been mentioned, the scraping of the chairs is very irritating. This could be ameliorated by people taking the trouble to gently lift the chair when moving it. I think an area of movable pews should be provided. There should still be space for tables for those who want them. The shul is not really suitable for use as a regular simcha hall though I would concede that it would be useful to have the ability to rearrange it occasionally. Given the widespread views in favour of keeping the current arrangements and the unknown of the EJPS hall, I don't think we can justify spending much money on seating at the moment, even though this will probably kill off any initiative for change as we will get too used to the way things are now. Michael Steel says: I'm strongly in favour of maximum flexibility. It's been a pleasure to daven in the new shul. The present arrangements keep all options open, without compromising its main purpose. Eli Abeles says: I'm a firm believer in retaining the main shul area as a makom Tefilla only, because it adds an aura of 'kedusha' - separateness - to this very special environment we have created. In any case, in practical terms the area is not particularly suitable as a Simcha hall - distance and awkward access to kitchens, nor was it designed for that purpose. As to the question of fixed seating, members should bear in mind that the type of pews we have in the ladies area do not need permanent fixing on the parquet flooring - in fact Lavi (who manufacture the pews) can provide dollies for transporting such pews if we need to clear some of the area for a Chupa, or for Simchat Torah, etc. I do not think we need to have pews throughout the shul area, and we can retain an area of tables and chairs for those members who want this type of seating. As regards financing pews, we should 'sell' them to those who prefer to sit at pews (the ladies pews cost £150 on average). We could also provide pews for the ladies' area at the side if they would prefer. The warmth that we feel in the shul is generated by the decor, lighting etc., rather than by the tables and chairs which I think give an overall impression of untidiness, especially during weekday services. Michael Bordoley says: Where we doven should be and feel like a makom tefillah, our little beis hamikdash. I, and I think, many of the above gentleman were brought up in synagogues designed for that purpose, especially inside, such that one could feel the decorum and atmosphere of kedushah. The interior layout definitely contributed. It should be people who make the shul warm and friendly not the furniture. Flexibility to some extent could be achieved by the use of pew seats which are mobile and linkable, with book rests on the back. If and when we grow in membership retaining the present format will mean introducing more chairs and more similar tables. I have just spent pessach in a shul seating almost 600 men in such an arrangement. It was cramped and a little wild even with maybe 100 members being away. Paul Herszaft says: If I wanted to sit on a pew I would go to United or the local church, as far as I’m concerned it’s very nice as is so please save your money or spend it on some air conditioning instead. Michael Dean says: My view is that the communal hall is far too small for some functions, such as e.g. some public meetings, private functions for the convenience of members, private functions for non-members, to bring income into the Shul. The most versatile use of the main davening area would therefore be very useful. As to appearance, this does not seem to me too inappropriate since I come from a background of shtiebles as well as United Synagogues, e.g. it is currently better than the main Shul in Belmont (maximally adaptable but not marvellous for davening) which has only chairs but no book rests and better than the main Shul in Edgware and in Stanmore each of which has only fixed pews (marvellous for davening but completely unadaptable for other uses, even lectures). To increase the seating in our main davening area, the front of each table could be utilised as well as the back, or again there could be narrower tables specially for davening. Aviv Handler says: I am in favour of pews, as I feel that the current layout has a feeling of being unfinished, which is a pity given our investment into our wonderful building. I do not feel that the current layout is optimal for a makom tefillah, as to me the room feels temporary and disorganised. If the room were mostly pews, preferably facing the bimah at the sides, it would feel like a true shul. Having said that, if it were possible to have movable pews, or perhaps as has been suggested leaving an area with tables and chairs for those who prefer them, we could have an area for dancing or a chupa. There is also the issue of space. At certain times there are insufficient seats and pews would resolve this. In terms of use of the shul, given that we will have another hall across the road, and in view of the drawbacks of using the shul room for food functions mentioned by others, I would prefer that the shul be used for tefillah or similar (e.g. chupa, dancing on simchat torah etc.) for the majority of the time, with the odd exception. In terms of comfort, I am reliably informed that it is possible to get very comfortable pews. I have recently been informed of a new shul in Israel that has pews with special lumbar support. I would say that is worth investigating. Steven Kander says: At 261 Hale Lane we had fixed seating in the men's Shul till we took over first the ladies' then one classroom finally another which created the lay out till August 2009. The vast majority of the last few years the seating at tables was full & the pews had spare space. When the Rav gave a sit down Shiur he always came to the back & we (including Ladies) sat at our tables & chairs. The present lay out of the shul needs to be evaluated based on the needs of as mokom tefilla first & foremost. Other use needs a separate discussion. The Kander Chupa could only have taken place with totally removable furniture (we had total seating for 314) I do suggest that in due course we should look at custom made tables, which should give a more solid look & feel which can be moved & stored i.e. New Shul Hendon. |
