Church design: the good, the bad, and the ugly

[RNRobert]

While on vacation in August, I toured St Andrew’s Catholic Church in Roanoke, VA. It is a lovely old church that was built in 1902 and is on the US list of historic landmarks http://us.f529.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter/St_Andrews_3.JPG(I’d show you some pics I took of it, but it seems you can only insert pics that are available on the internet). I saved a bulletin from the church as well as a booklet describing the church, which I gave to my parish priest (I like to give him bulletins from other Catholic churches I’ve been to). I told him, “They don’t make churches like that nymore.” He said, “No they don’t, nor can they, unless you have an extra $20 million lying around.”
He probably has a pretty good idea of the cost of church building, as my parish is currently raising money (I think we have $3 million so far, and need another couple million) to build a new church. Our current church is about 30 years old, and was originally supposed t be the parish school gym. It was only to be a 'temporary" church, but the needs of the school always took priority. There is an computerized depiction of what the new church will look like in the church vestible, and while it isn’t ugly like some modern churches, it is rather plain.
I’ve been in a number of older churches besides St Andrews: St Margaret of Antioch in Pearl River, NY (My Mom attended there as a child, and I attended Mass there a couple times when I was visiting), another church in Daytona Beach (fairly large, I can’t recall it’s name), St Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City (AWESOME- go see it if you ever have the chance), and St Augustine Cathedral in St Augustine, FL. I find these old churches have an otherworldliness about them that lifts my soul to heaven (very appropriate, as the Mass is about making Heaven present on Earth- see Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper).
I realize that it would cost more to build churches like they once did. But I’m sure those old churches cost their parishioners a pretty penny (by the prices of their day) to build them. They could have economized and built a less ornate church, but instead they were will to pay the cost to have a beautiful church. Could it be that Catholics of those times were more willing to sacrifice for their church than those of today?
Some Catholics may point to the influence of Protestantism in modern church design. Many modern Catholic Churches do seem to reflect the bare-bones look of some Protestant churches. However, I have seen some nice Protestant churches. While on vacation I was in Williamsburg, VA and toured Bruton Parish Church, an 18th century Anglican church. The altar would have looked like something you would see used in a Tridentine Mass. If you didn’t know any better you could have sworn you were in a Catholic Church.
The problem I see with today’s modern churches is that the rich symbolism present in the decor of those old churches has been swept away. Is it really just a matter of finance, or are there other reasons?

 

[Crusader]

RNRobert:

While on vacation in August, I toured St Andrew’s Catholic Church in Roanoke, VA. It is a lovely old church that was built in 1902 and is on the US list of historic landmarks http://us.f529.mail.yahoo.com/ym/ShowLetter/St_Andrews_3.JPG(I’d show you some pics I took of it, but it seems you can only insert pics that are available on the internet). I saved a bulletin from the church as well as a booklet describing the church, which I gave to my parish priest (I like to give him bulletins from other Catholic churches I’ve been to). I told him, “They don’t make churches like that nymore.” He said, “No they don’t, nor can they, unless you have an extra $20 million lying around.”
He probably has a pretty good idea of the cost of church building, as my parish is currently raising money (I think we have $3 million so far, and need another couple million) to build a new church. Our current church is about 30 years old, and was originally supposed t be the parish school gym. It was only to be a 'temporary" church, but the needs of the school always took priority. There is an computerized depiction of what the new church will look like in the church vestible, and while it isn’t ugly like some modern churches, it is rather plain.
I’ve been in a number of older churches besides St Andrews: St Margaret of Antioch in Pearl River, NY (My Mom attended there as a child, and I attended Mass there a couple times when I was visiting), another church in Daytona Beach (fairly large, I can’t recall it’s name), St Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City (AWESOME- go see it if you ever have the chance), and St Augustine Cathedral in St Augustine, FL. I find these old churches have an otherworldliness about them that lifts my soul to heaven (very appropriate, as the Mass is about making Heaven present on Earth- see Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper).
I realize that it would cost more to build churches like they once did. But I’m sure those old churches cost their parishioners a pretty penny (by the prices of their day) to build them. They could have economized and built a less ornate church, but instead they were will to pay the cost to have a beautiful church. Could it be that Catholics of those times were more willing to sacrifice for their church than those of today?
Some Catholics may point to the influence of Protestantism in modern church design. Many modern Catholic Churches do seem to reflect the bare-bones look of some Protestant churches. However, I have seen some nice Protestant churches. While on vacation I was in Williamsburg, VA and toured Bruton Parish Church, an 18th century Anglican church. The altar would have looked like something you would see used in a Tridentine Mass. If you didn’t know any better you could have sworn you were in a Catholic Church.
The problem I see with today’s modern churches is that the rich symbolism present in the decor of those old churches has been swept away. Is it really just a matter of finance, or are there other reasons?

I don’t think new churches necessarily look worse than older churches, and I certainly don’t think it’s typically a matter of money.

Take the relatively new EWTN shrine in Hanceville Alabama. While I don’t care for the overall effect they acheived on that project, it certainly has all the old-time bells and whistles. Just the sort of bells and whistles that would warm the heart of someone like you.

Conversely you can take the new ~$300,000,000 cathedral in downtown LA. Far, far, far more expensive than the Hancevill project, yet it lacks the bells and whistles you so ardently desire.

Nope, it’s rarely a matter of dollar or era. It’s typically a matter of excellence (or lack thereof) in design.

 

[akemner]

Of course, the biggest difference in the cost of buidling churches today versus one or two hundred years ago is in labor-then a great many of the parishoners built the building themselves. But a traditional design for a temple need not cost $20 million either. While building mediaeval style edifaces are generally cost prohibitive for the average parish, i do think that a traditional design is possible on a budget-you just have to dig deeper into history. Albeit, you won’t get a structure that is 100’ high in the interior-but that is not necessary. A basic basilica design (i mean the real basilica design, not the giant cruciform design with an altar in the middle and choir or chapel behind that) need not be more than two or three stories overall, but still hold a lot of people and give the proper directional focus. Another idea (but i know this will never fly) is to build smaller, but get rid of the pews. More people can get packed into the smaller space.

One can also look into non-western plans, especially Byzantine (which are, or used to be, prevalent throughout Italy and Sicily). Granted, these tend to be geared toward small congretations (100-300 families, or even fewer), but the plans are very efficient size and materials.

Also, one of the biggest qualms i have with new designs is not the plan (which is a big qualm, but not the biggest) is the sterility of the design-no statues, tiny Stations, and blank walls (why not hire sone college art students that are willing to paint religious paints on the walls, or at least some geometric or floral outlines to break up the bleak space?). The lack of religious material in the Nave especially is really what detracts from real worship, as the white space does not put us into the proper mind to pray.

In Christ,
Adam

 

[Bonnie]

In the last couple of months I visited 4 different parishes - in 3 I couldn’f find the Tabernacle without help. Two of those did have very nice Chapels, but they were hard to find. The other had the Tabernacle set into a glass wall with no light to identify it. At that parish I actually wondered if I was in a Catholic church. They also omitted the Creed & the EM didn’t say “Body of Christ” when giving Communion. At that parish we also noticed personal grooming going on during the homily, which was good (the homily, not the grooming!)

Once while at the Cathedral in Spokane, I committed the faux pas of mentioning how ugly the modernization of the beautiful old building was. The parishioner I was speaking with took offense - she thought it was wonderful!

 

[oat_soda]

The problem I see with today’s modern churches is that the rich symbolism present in the decor of those old churches has been swept away. Is it really just a matter of finance, or are there other reasons?

I would like to blame it all on post vatican II errors but some of these ugly modern churches were built during the 50’s. it seems to conicide with the movement of catholic communities out of the major cities and into the suburbs. materialism is probably the biggest reason for the crisis in the church and played a role in the ugly church movement. the false “spirt of vatican II” is the reason they destroyed altar rails, high altars, and altar pieces.

 

[loyola_rambler]

Saddest of all are the renovations that take out the beautiful architectural elements and replace them with “minimalist modernism”. I’ve posted before about how sad the renovations at St. Mary’s Cathedral in Saginaw are…beautiful baptismal bath and not a crucifix in sight. The statue of “Mary” looks more like a bronze of a Grecian maiden bathing in a river…and the movie screen across the back of the altar is all too charming, too. But hey, the mass is still valid and the priest is still breathing. All things considered, there’s something to be said for that, too.

 

[Faustina]

Our Church was built in 1925. The parish was actually established before then, an offshoot of another parish. The church building is styled in the Norman-Gothic style. The first time I walked into the church I thought I was back in Europe. The interior, they say a picture is worth a thousand words. Here is picture of the interior of the church:

korrnet.org/holyghst/graphics/03-BackPew-760.jpg

and the exterior

korrnet.org/holyghst/graphics/01-HG-760.jpg

and finally my two favorite features of our church

korrnet.org/holyghst/graphics/06-Reredos-760.jpg

and

korrnet.org/holyghst/graphics/08-windows.jpg

There is so much history with this church. The stained glass windows were made in Innsbruck Austria. The company that made them were bombed out during WWII. The alter piece of Christ the King and the 4 apostles, was carved out of one piece of wood.

Our pastor there was an assistant pastor in the late 60’s and early 70’s, right after Vatican II. He said that the general feeling was everything old needed to be thrown out and everything new to replace it. Since he did not subscribe to that feeling, he started going dempsy dumpster diving and started retrieving chalices and candlesticks and such. He has quite a collection of chalices and keeps them in the rectory. When we have visiting priests, he will bring out the chalices. Some of the items are from our “parent” parish.

 

[mercygate]

Try Michael Rose’s book, Ugly as Sin. It proposes some workable antidotes in restoring buildings that were wreckovated in the 60s & 70s.

 

[RNRobert]

akemner:

.

.

Also, one of the biggest qualms i have with new designs is not the plan (which is a big qualm, but not the biggest) is the sterility of the design-no statues, tiny Stations, and blank walls (why not hire sone college art students that are willing to paint religious paints on the walls, or at least some geometric or floral outlines to break up the bleak space?). The lack of religious material in the Nave especially is really what detracts from real worship, as the white space does not put us into the proper mind to pray.

In Christ,
Adam

This is the point I was trying to make. Church art is not just “bells and whistles” but there to lift our hearts and mind to God.

 

[JimG]

It seems ironic that people on the middle ages, with limited materials, labor, and technology, were able to construct such beautiful churches, going so far as to invent the flying buttress so that they could have large stained glass windows while maintaining structural integrity.

Yet today, with infinitely better structural materials and techniques at our disposal, we are unable to match them for beauty.

 

[SMHW]

JimG:

It seems ironic that people on the middle ages, with limited materials, labor, and technology, were able to construct such beautiful churches, going so far as to invent the flying buttress so that they could have large stained glass windows while maintaining structural integrity.

Yet today, with infinitely better structural materials and techniques at our disposal, we are unable to match them for beauty.

Keep in mind that some of the older churches in Europe took a long time to build. I suspect that many churches which are built today are not designed to exist for the next several centuries. Not every new church needs to compete with gothic cathedrals but it would be nice if a church is designed in such a way that the stained glass windows, doors, statues, stations of the cross, etc, can be incorporated as the money becomes available.

 

[mercygate]

Heh, heh, heh. Fr. George Rutler says that the best thing about the churches built in the 1960s and '70s is the ease with which they can be torn down. My confessor is a Monsignor on the committee deciding which churches in the diocese need to be closed or joined. I suggested that those decisions be made on the quality of the architecture. People from the suburbs have cars and can drive to the inner cities where the substantial buildings stand rotting in the slums . . .

 

[Crusader]

JimG:

It seems ironic that people on the middle ages, with limited materials, labor, and technology, were able to construct such beautiful churches, going so far as to invent the flying buttress so that they could have large stained glass windows while maintaining structural integrity.

Yet today, with infinitely better structural materials and techniques at our disposal, we are unable to match them for beauty.

Are you serious? First, when it came to Catholic churches, donated labor was almost UNlimited. Second, there was no great shortage of materials. People had very little for the most part, but they gave a great deal of what they had to the Church. Finally, many of these great buildings took decades and even centuries to complete.

Finally, I am certain their beauty could be “matched” if we were willing to make the investment much like our ancestors did…

 

[Crusader]

Of course, the biggest difference in the cost of buidling churches today versus one or two hundred years ago is in labor-then a great many of the parishoners built the building themselves. But a traditional design for a temple need not cost $20 million either. While building mediaeval style edifaces are generally cost prohibitive for the average parish, i do think that a traditional design is possible on a budget-you just have to dig deeper into history. Albeit, you won’t get a structure that is 100’ high in the interior-but that is not necessary. A basic basilica design (i mean the real basilica design, not the giant cruciform design with an altar in the middle and choir or chapel behind that) need not be more than two or three stories overall, but still hold a lot of people and give the proper directional focus. Another idea (but i know this will never fly) is to build smaller, but get rid of the pews. More people can get packed into the smaller space.

One can also look into non-western plans, especially Byzantine (which are, or used to be, prevalent throughout Italy and Sicily). Granted, these tend to be geared toward small congretations (100-300 families, or even fewer), but the plans are very efficient size and materials.

Also, one of the biggest qualms i have with new designs is not the plan (which is a big qualm, but not the biggest) is the sterility of the design-no statues, tiny Stations, and blank walls (why not hire sone college art students that are willing to paint religious paints on the walls, or at least some geometric or floral outlines to break up the bleak space?). The lack of religious material in the Nave especially is really what detracts from real worship, as the white space does not put us into the proper mind to pray.

In Christ,
Adam

1.) Not really. Land is likely the largest single expense around here if someone wanted to build a church. Better budget at least $5-10,000,000 for just the land for an average sized parish. The next biggest cost would be materials.

2.) Like St. Pete’s in the Vatican or the National Shrine in Washington DC?

 

[Crusader]

RNRobert:

This is the point I was trying to make. Church art is not just “bells and whistles” but there to lift our hearts and mind to God.

And what you desire in “Church art” may not be what I desire in “Church art.”

 

[Crusader]

mercygate:

Try Michael Rose’s book, Ugly as Sin. It proposes some workable antidotes in restoring buildings that were wreckovated in the 60s & 70s.

I would recommend consulting a real architect and not someone trained in bookeeping like Rose.

 

[csr]

Crusader:

I would recommend consulting a real architect and not someone trained in bookeeping like Rose.

His book lists some sources of architectural expertise–relevant expertise, i.e. architects who are capable of building beautiful churches. Rose’s study itself is quite thoroughly researched, and was published by Sophia Institute Press.

 

[HagiaSophia]

SMHW:

I suspect that many churches which are built today are not designed to exist for the next several centuries. .

Deo Gratias.

 

[Crusader]

csr:

His book lists some sources of architectural expertise–relevant expertise, i.e. architects who are capable of building beautiful churches. Rose’s study itself is quite thoroughly researched, and was published by Sophia Institute Press.

Rose is trained as a bookeeper and some of his works are more than a bit suspect.

 

[Chris_in_Mich]

I would also recommend the book “Ugly as Sin”. In my area the Greek Orthodox, and the Chaldean churches are both very new, and though I’ve been in neither from the outside they have every bit of the grandness of an older RC church. Also, dare I say the groups that Celebrate the Tridentine Mass exclusively have a budget yet their new (or renovated) churches have a more otherly world feel then others.