A Denomination Reimagines Its Property Portfolio

Most conversations about church coworking happen at the congregational level — one church, one building, one leadership team trying to figure out what to do with underused space.

But some of the most interesting work I've done has happened at a different scale: with regional denominational bodies that are looking at their entire property portfolio at once.

This is a behind-the-scenes look at one such process. I've changed identifying details to protect confidentiality, but the dynamics and lessons are real.

The Situation

A mid-sized regional body — roughly 80 congregations spread across a metropolitan area and its suburbs — had been watching a familiar pattern play out for a decade. Congregations were shrinking. Buildings were aging. Maintenance costs were rising. A handful of congregations had already closed, leaving the regional body holding properties it didn't know what to do with.

The new regional executive had a background in real estate and community development. She came in with a clear conviction: the denomination's property portfolio was its most underutilized asset, and the current approach — managing each property in isolation, reacting to crises rather than planning strategically — was not sustainable.

She asked me to help design a portfolio-level discernment process.

The Assessment Phase

We started with a comprehensive assessment of all 80 properties. This was more complex than it sounds.

Each property had its own history, its own condition, its own relationship with the surrounding neighborhood, and its own congregation (or former congregation) with strong feelings about what should happen to it. The regional body had legal obligations to some congregations, denominational covenants with others, and varying degrees of control over different properties.

We developed a simple scoring framework that looked at four dimensions for each property:

Physical condition and adaptability — What is the building's current condition? What would it cost to bring it to a standard suitable for coworking or other adaptive use? How flexible is the floor plan?

Location and neighborhood context — What is the surrounding neighborhood like? Is there demand for coworking or community space in this location? What are the transit and parking options?

Congregational vitality — Is there an active congregation in this building? If so, what is their capacity to manage a coworking pilot? If not, what is the regional body's plan for the property?

Financial position — What are the current carrying costs? What revenue would be needed to make the property self-sustaining? What is the realistic upside?

After scoring all 80 properties, a clear picture emerged. About 15 properties were strong candidates for coworking or other adaptive use. Another 20 had potential but needed significant investment or congregational development work first. The remaining 45 were either too small, too remote, too deteriorated, or too encumbered by congregational or legal complications to be viable in the near term.

The Strategic Framework

With the assessment complete, we developed a three-tier strategic framework.

Tier 1: Pilot Sites (5 properties) These were the strongest candidates — good buildings in good locations with either active congregations ready to lead a pilot or properties the regional body controlled directly. We recommended launching coworking pilots at all five within 18 months.

Tier 2: Development Pipeline (10 properties) These properties had real potential but needed work before they were ready for a pilot — infrastructure upgrades, congregational development, zoning clearance, or some combination. We recommended a 2–3 year development timeline for each.

Tier 3: Strategic Review (65 properties) For the remaining properties, we recommended a more fundamental strategic review: What is this property for? Is the congregation viable? Should the regional body invest in this building, sell it, or find a partner organization to take it on?

What Made This Process Work

A few things made this particular process more successful than similar efforts I've seen elsewhere.

Leadership commitment at the top. The regional executive was genuinely committed to this process and willing to make hard decisions. Without that, portfolio-level work tends to get stuck in committee.

Honest data. We were rigorous about the assessment — we didn't let congregational politics or sentimental attachment distort the scoring. Some beloved buildings scored poorly. Some overlooked properties scored well. The data was what it was.

Congregational involvement. We didn't do this to the congregations; we did it with them. Each congregation whose property was in the assessment received a summary of their property's scores and an invitation to respond. Some pushed back. Some were relieved to have an honest assessment. A few became enthusiastic partners in the pilot process.

A clear decision-making framework. The regional body knew, going in, what criteria they would use to make decisions about each property. This prevented the process from getting bogged down in case-by-case negotiations.

What Happened Next

Two years after the initial assessment, three of the five Tier 1 pilots were operational. One had launched and struggled — the congregation wasn't ready, despite the building's potential — and was being restructured. One was delayed by a zoning issue that took longer to resolve than expected.

Of the Tier 2 properties, four had moved into active development. The regional body had sold two Tier 3 properties to community development organizations that were better positioned to activate them.

It's not a perfect outcome. Portfolio-level work at this scale is slow and complicated, and the results are uneven. But the regional body now has a strategic framework for its properties rather than a reactive posture — and that's a significant shift.

What Other Denominations Can Learn

If you're a regional leader thinking about your property portfolio, here are the lessons I'd draw from this experience.

Start with honest assessment, not strategy. You can't develop a good strategy without good data. Invest in a rigorous assessment before you start making decisions.

Think in tiers. Not every property is a coworking candidate. Trying to activate everything at once is a recipe for spreading resources too thin and achieving nothing. Identify your strongest opportunities and focus there first.

Involve congregations as partners, not subjects. The congregations whose buildings are in your portfolio have knowledge, relationships, and legitimate interests. Treat them as partners in the discernment process, not obstacles to be managed.

Be willing to make hard decisions. Some properties should be sold. Some congregations should be helped to close with dignity rather than kept on life support. Portfolio-level stewardship sometimes requires decisions that are painful in the short term but right for the long term.

If you're a denominational leader thinking about your property portfolio, I'd welcome a conversation. This is work I find deeply meaningful — and I think the opportunity is larger than most denominations realize.