The short answer is that there probably is a small preference.
The gemara[1] states: “A person’s prayer is heard only in a beit knesset, as the verse says: ‘… to hear the praise and the prayer’[2] – at the place of the praise, there should be the prayer.” Thus, there would seem to be an important reason to daven specifically in a shul. Indeed, the Shulchan Aruch[3] writes: “A person should try to daven in a beit knesset with the community.” He continues that there is also a preference to daven in a beit knesset even if one will be davening there alone (although this is the subject of a machloket Rishonim[4]).
The question is whether one’s davening that does not occur in a beit knesset is inferior and to what extent. The Magen Avraham[5] writes that the reason for the Shulchan Aruch’s recommendation is the idea of b’rov am hadrat melech (roughly, it brings glory to the King when there is a large group). The Pri Megadim[6] posits that even without the factor of b’rov am, a shul is always preferred. In his view, a shul is not merely a place to find a minyan; the very fact that it is a shul makes it a better choice than a minyan out of a shul. However, not all agree with this view. The Tzelach[7] says that the important thing is having one’s tefilla heard and that this can be accomplished either by davening in a shul, even as an individual, or by davening with a minyan, even out of a shul.
In another Talmudic source about davening in a beit Knesset, the gemara[8] says that whoever does not daven in a community’s shul is called a “bad neighbor” and is doomed to exile. The Chida[9] writes that this warning does not apply if the person davens elsewhere with a minyan, because the Divine Presence dwells wherever a minyan prays. However, he continues, in order to receive its full positive impact, the davening must be in a place that is “set for holiness.”
The criterion of “set for holiness” is not clear. Private ownership does not seem to preclude a status of a beit knesset.[10] Allowing the occasional use of a regular place of prayer for eating, especially when limited to the context of mitzva-related events,[11] also would likely not preclude it from being considered a place of holiness. However, regularly using one’s living room for a minyan after a shiur or holding a daily Mincha minyan in a company board room does not turn these rooms into batei knesset.
While we accept the preference of davening in a beit knesset rather than somewhere else,[12] it is not an absolute requirement. This qualification is important not only to justify one opting not to daven in a shul due to a significant inconvenience, but also because other choices can have advantages that potentially outweigh those of davening in a shul. We will give some examples of other criteria for preference, with the caveat that the particulars of a given case can make all the difference as to which choice should prevail: 1) Davening in a place where one learns on a regular basis.[13] 2) The speed of the davening and/or the congregants’ behavior in a particular beit knesset affects one’s focus negatively.[14] 3) The shul will not have a minyan.[15]
We are generally strong believers in the importance of community, on various grounds. We note, for example, that Rav Kook writes that it is important to show that one connects his prayer to the matter of publicizing HaShem’s greatness, and this is actuated most profoundly in the communal setting.[16] That being said, sometimes even the most communally-oriented people have recourse to daven outside of a shul.