While the abandonment and dilapidation of historic buildings is generally accepted as the catalyst of adaptive reuse today, the past examples as described in this project – the Pantheon of Rome, the Great Mosque of Cordoba, and Hagia Sophia of Istanbul – had been neither dilapidated nor abandoned when they were transformed. Thus the examples demonstrate shifts in power and religion. Necipoglu (1992:195) finds the
reason in their transcendent being of aesthetic qualities. Gilson (1966) demonstrates that such aesthetic quality is the nature of religious buildings.
This is why, in all times and perhaps most obviously in our day, religious edifices, whether temples or churches have directly belonged to this relatively untrammeled architecture which can attain its particular utilitarian end while committing itself to the creation of beauty as an artistic end. The architect is free to conceive of it as a pure object of beauty, that is, as if its very beauty constituted the essence of the offering made by man to the divinity. This is why the church is the only object of beauty in so many a village (Gilson, 1966:45-46).
In addition to the aesthetic value, the perception of these historic buildings as political and cultural religious symbols of their nations prompted their preservation through adaptive reuses. For instance, the Pantheon as the emblem of the heavenly gods and emperors was available to promote Christian powers and made the structure reusable for a Christian church. Likewise, the Great Mosque as a Spanish regional and political symbol survived by being converted from one faith to another. Hagia Sophia, an Orthodox Christian church, survived as a political and cultural religious symbol of an empire and nation. This symbol was conceived when it turned into a mosque and a museum.
The original symbolic value of each of the examples was perceived as significant by new powers. The conversion was led mainly by these new authorities such as emperors, caliphs, and popes. Their perception was the most influential in transforming the
buildings. Each building was converted into a different religious building retaining the original symbolic value that was regarded as significant by the authorities, and therefore, led to minor changes of the critical architectural features.
Unlike the past examples, the recent examples of adaptively reused historic churches have significance on the local level as community cultural symbols (e.g., landmark of a community). The conversion projects were designed by professional architects utilizing their interpretation of the aesthetic and economic values of the sacred buildings. The projects were carried out with the aid of non-profit preservation organizations including governmental and private preservation organizations. The phenomenon indicates that the adaptive reuse of historic churches became a systematic and deliberate process. The adapted new building types became more diverse than in the past: the recently-converted church examples were all secularized for new functions (e.g., retail shops, offices, residences, and concert and exhibition halls).
The difference between the past and recent past examples reflects the shift in relationships between religion and political power. When religion and politics were tightly related, the patronage of religious authorities maintained political power. This was demonstrated by the protection of a grand sacred building (Sabau, 1998:3).
Currently, economic and cultural patronage appears to take the place of religion.
Therefore, historic churches are being converted to commercial and cultural uses. A good example of this trend is how Hagia Sophia was eventually converted into a
museum by the Turkish government in the early twentieth century. This conversion also manifests the shift of power from religion to the secular.
In this adaptation procedure, the public often joins by providing financial support and appealing to community values of the buildings in the initiation phase of the projects.
However, public participation and perception are not guaranteed by any preservation standards and sometimes they are excluded. The exclusion of public perception on changes seems to be a major factor leading to the controversy in projects such as the Hospitalet church of Ibiza.69
The adaptive reuse of the late 20th century emphasizes the economic reuse of historic buildings for their long term preservation (Diamonstein, 1978:25). Accordingly, the changes in adapting historic churches have become more diverse and creative by including varied building types (Diamonstein, 1978:13). As a result, compared to past examples, the recent examples appear to have undergone more radical changes. In other words, the perception of a building type in terms of its practical function and symbolic value seems to define the extent of physical changes.
Such a standpoint recalls Latham’s view about adaptive reuse. Unlike Fitch (2001:44), who asserts that museological reuse of a building is the most favorable choice since it can keep almost all of the original features to the greatest extent, Latham (2000:85-86) prefers the reuse of the sacred building as a community or cultural center because of
the similarity in their functions and meaning. Mavis (1976) supports Latham’s notion by putting emphasis on the public’s concerns with the original characteristics of their settings in the viewpoint of a community preservation program70. Interestingly enough, Carrier (2001) opposes Fitch (2001:39-47) with the notion that the concept of a museum naturally separates objects from their original settings. He asks if the restored mosaics of Hagia Sophia still keep their original values (Carrier, 2001:180). This implies that the perception of building types is not only concerned with the physical features, but also conceptual features such as cultural and symbolic values as well.