For 4 or 5 years now, I have been an advocate for prioritizing population density over population growth in locating a new church or a new campus of a multi-site church. I’m am leading a movement with this idea. A movement of 2: me and my mom.
How many times have you heard something like the following in rationalizing a potential church site:
- “This county, just north of the city, is the fastest growing county in the state.”
- “A new subdivision is coming in that will have over 2,000 housetops.”
Here’s a hypothetical situation. A tale of 2 cities:
Rabbit Town - Population Density of 50 people / sq. mile, Annual Population Growth of 20%
Turtle Town – Population Density of 500 people / sq. mile, Annual Population Growth of 5%
Almost every lay leader and most church planters go for growth. Better to trust the turtle. There are a ton of reasons to go for density. Here are a few:
- Ultimately, Rabbit Town’s density will catch up; however, the densities of these 2 towns are not equal until just over 17 years from now. Everyone knows (or is it no one knows; I can’t remember), Jesus is coming back before then.
- In year one, 15,700 people live within a 10-mile radius of a church in Rabbit Town. In year one, 157,000 people live within a 10-mile radius of a church in Turtle Town. How much of a shot do you have at someone more than 10 miles away? Wouldn’t you prefer a market with 10 times as many people?
If this is so clear, why do church site locators consistently make this mistake?
- It’s a vestige of denominational thinking. Dense, older parts of the city are already churched, specifically with churches of your denomination. Let’s stay away from them so they won’t get mad.
- Or, you tend to think of other churches as competition. Better to locate in an area where there aren’t any. The cruel reality is that most churches are in decline. If they were effective competition, there’d be no need to plant yours. If you aren’t going to be substantially different, why bother?
For extra credit - Microsoft has a program called MapPoint 2009. It’s about $300 and worth every penny. For any potential location, you can draw a 10-mile radius (or, better yet, a 20-minute drive-time polygon) and the program counts the people within the perimeter. It takes the guesswork out of comparing locations.
Anyone out there still a proponent of population growth?
[...] in thinking about multi-site, think fewer, larger campuses. Combine this thought with my last post and think fewer, larger, denser campuses. Possibly related posts: (automatically [...]
[...] think about cannibalizing your existing campuses. Combine this thought with this post and this post and plant fewer, larger, denser, closer campuses. Possibly related posts: (automatically [...]
McD – great insights once again!
I’d love to know the map point info in Athens. Can you use 300 N. Thomas St as the center point?
(in reply to sean seay) Sean, I’m on it. 300 N. Thomas St. it turns out is the center of the universe. Who knew?
How about 881 W. Main St. Dothan, AL 36301
stated so effectively that even i can understand it, and i’m just an SPD guy…
You have swayed me…glad I chose downtown…
David
I liked your article on density vs growth. I have been providing community demographic information for churches for over 21 years. we have a new company called MissionInsite designed specifically to support church mission planning. Thought you might want to know about us. I would be happy to provide you a free report on any location you choose to show you our tools.
thanks
Mike
David
Had the chance to connect with you on a conference call yesterday and was reading your blog for more info. Thanks for the insights. Slight dilemma in our case. Keystone was planted in a rabbit town (in 1990) and slowly grew to 200 people at which point a building was built. We are now on the border of 700 and our 11:15 AM experience is filling up and the 9 AM experience is not far behind. We have room for expansion on our property (so that was good advice) but the population 10 minutes to our north (Ann Arbor) is considerably more dense. Would this context shift your advice regarding the expansion of our current site vs. the development of an additional site in a higher density population center?
Ken, enjoyed talking with you on the conference call. Always, always proceed in a growth strategy from simple to complex. Assuming you do not yet have a significant market share in your suburb community of Ann Arbor, grow there first. Maximize single site growth first before going to multi-site. Then, and only then, consider a 2nd site. When you’re ready to go to a 2nd site, my 2 cents would be to pick a 2nd location close enough to the 1st to cannibalize it creating empty seats in both locations. Also, just guessing, population density increases as you move form where you are now and move towards Ann Arbor. So, probably a good spot would be moving toward Ann Arbor from where you are but close enough to cannibalize.
I am assuming you saw this post. If not, it reiterates my answer somewhat. Consider the 2nd location when your seat turns in the 1st location are 2.3 or better.
By the way, this is a great “problem” to have. You guys must be doing something right. Keep it up.