New Spiritual Architecture Phyllis Richardson

Working with New Spiritual Architecture Phyllis Richardson – What Actually Happens When You Try It

I first came across New Spiritual Architecture Phyllis Richardson through a small online discussion board, then dug into the related papers and design notes. The core idea is relatively straightforward: it attempts to merge contemplative spatial theory with modern digital modelling workflows so that sacred geometry and meditative proportions can be generated programmatically rather than drawn by hand. Most people who find it are architects, interior designers, or people working in experiential installations who want structure without spending weeks on manual drafting. The basic setup involves a parameter-based generator that takes a few key inputs – room proportions, lighting direction, intended use, and a set of proportional ratios drawn from traditional sacred geometry. The tool then produces floor plans, section elevations, and sometimes 3D massing studies. It is not a full BIM replacement. It is a dedicated module for spaces meant to be experienced slowly.

New Spiritual Architecture Phyllis Richardson

Here is how I actually use it on a project. I start by defining the space purpose. A meditation room needs different axial ratios than a small chapel or a reading alcove. I enter those ratios as baseline parameters, then let the generator iterate. The output gives me a set of candidate layouts, each with its own proportion story attached. I pick the one that feels least arbitrary and refine from there. The counter-intuitive thing about this workflow is that more parameters usually make the design worse. Early in my work with New Spiritual Architecture Phyllis Richardson I tried to control every variable – material, acoustics, ceiling height, light temperature – and the generator produced results that looked coherent but felt sterile. The system was overfitting. I learned to limit myself to three or four parameters and leave the rest open. The tool fills gaps better when you do not force every choice upfront. Another detail most beginners miss is the export pipeline. The standard outputs are CAD-compatible formats and basic render previews, but the real value shows up when you pull the generated geometry into a ray-tracing environment for light studies. I use the raw mesh data from the generator, import it into a rendering tool, and run a sun-path simulation before committing to any construction drawings. That step catches problems that the generator itself cannot see, like how a low winter sun will hit a particular bench or altar surface.

I had a specific issue last year on a project where the generator kept producing a corner that created a dead acoustic pocket. The space looked fine visually but sounded hollow when simulated. I checked the ratio settings and realized the generator was prioritizing visual symmetry over spatial depth cues. The workaround was to override the corner proportion manually and re-run the acoustic analysis with a different diffusion model. It took about forty minutes instead of hours. That kind of adjustment is normal when you push this tool past its default assumptions. Common pitfalls I see people run into: First, treating the generated layout as final. It is a starting point, not a finish. The generator does not understand local building codes, accessibility requirements, or how a specific site will constrain circulation. Second, ignoring the scale feedback loop. The proportional system works best at human walking pace. If you generate a large hall and then try to squeeze it into a residential footprint, the ratios break down and the space reads as awkward rather than intentional. Third, skipping the material pass entirely. Sacred geometry is not just about shape. Surface finish changes how the proportions are perceived. A polished stone floor and a plaster wall will make the same layout feel like two different buildings.

What the tool does not handle well: It struggles with irregular site boundaries. If your plot is triangular or has an unexpected setback, the generator tends to force a rectangular solution that may not respect the actual constraints. In those cases I fall back to manual drafting for the boundary and only use the tool for interior spatial organization. It also does not generate structural engineering data. The output is spatial and aesthetic. You still need a separate workflow for load paths and code compliance. Performance notes:

On a typical workstation, generating a single layout iteration takes between two and five minutes depending on complexity. A full set of plans with three refinement passes usually runs about twenty minutes total. If you are working with higher resolution meshes and want to export directly to game-engine-ready assets for walkthroughs, budget another fifteen to thirty minutes for optimization. The file sizes can get large quickly if you keep all layers active. Learning curve: You can produce something usable within a few hours if you stick to simple rectangular spaces. Understanding when and why the generator makes certain choices takes longer, probably a couple of weeks of deliberate practice. I recommend starting with small rooms before attempting chapels or larger assemblies. The ratio system is more forgiving at smaller scales and exposes its weaknesses sooner at larger ones.

I do not consider this tool a complete solution for anyone doing serious sacred or contemplative space design. It is a strong helper for the early conceptual phase and a useful way to test proportion ideas quickly. For construction documents and full project delivery you still need traditional workflows alongside it. The time saved is mainly in the ideation stage, not the documentation stage. Where to get it: The distribution channels change periodically, so I avoid posting direct links here. The current primary source is the official project repository, which can be found through the main associated community page. There is a free evaluation version for non-commercial use and a paid tier for commercial projects. The license allows modification of the ratio libraries, which is useful if you want to incorporate regional traditions that differ from the default set.

If you decide to try New Spiritual Architecture Phyllis Richardson, start small, export to a rendering tool for light checks, and do not assume the first generation is the best outcome. The tool rewards iteration more than it rewards a single attempt. Most of the value comes from running multiple variations and comparing how the proportions feel at human scale, not from trusting any one output blindly.