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

[JimG]

Crusader:

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

Of course we could match the beauty of past generation’s churches, donated labor or not. My point was that we are not doing it. I think the reason has less to do with economics than with a deliberate push for “plainer” structures, which give no glory to God, and no uplift to the human heart.

 

[RNRobert]

JimG:

Of course we could match the beauty of past generation’s churches, donated labor or not. My point was that we are not doing it. I think the reason has less to do with economics than with a deliberate push for “plainer” structures, which give no glory to God, and no uplift to the human heart.

My point exactly.

 

[RNRobert]

Crusader:

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

I will concede that point. Some orders (like the Franciscans, for example) prefer to have churches that are plain with no frills, no doubt in keeping with their vows of poverty. And some people may prefer that. But I seriously doubt that the people designing the plain churches of today have the same motives as the Franciscans, IMHO.

 

[Crusader]

JimG:

Of course we could match the beauty of past generation’s churches, donated labor or not. My point was that we are not doing it. I think the reason has less to do with economics than with a deliberate push for “plainer” structures, which give no glory to God, and no uplift to the human heart.

Are you serious? I think you’re focusing a bit too much on the bells and whistles.

My personal favorite constuction is decorative concrete block with a copper roof. Structures like that can not only look good (I demand excellence in design), they can last almost indefinately around here with next to zero exterior maintenance.

Inside I like very rich and traditional stations, ambo, altar, crucifix, pews or chairs with kneelers, baptistry, statuary, etc. etc.

I have seen far too many old and extremely ornate gingerbread buildings that end-up getting bulldozed because they are too costly to maintain.

For those of you who don’t think decorative concrete block and copper roofing can look nice, I’mm match any of the rather crude adobe Alta California Missions against your gingerbread houses anytime.

 

[akemner]

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?

1. I cannot imagine paying that price for a parcel of land except perhaps in a city (where i am from, land that is more than $10,000/acre is outrageous, though that is what folks pay closer to larger towns). Most parishes do not need more than five acres, especially given that few build a church with a cemetary (of course, i am not in touch with modern RC mega-parish realities that require a social hall, a school, and what all else sprawled out all over the place before a Temple is erected).
2. I was trying to differentiate between the the class of Temple that is now styled “basilica” in Latin Catholic terms (such as St Peter’s or Westminster Abbey) with the actual basilica plan (like St John Lateran).
3. Whatever the preference, sacred art (which is symbolic and representative, based on prior models, and not original and individualistic) as been the norm since the days of the Apostles (did not St Luke write the first ikons? and the woman with the hemorrage have a statue made of Jesus at Caesarea Philippi? and the images in the catacombs?). To have plain, strange structures are apart of no one’s tradition, and do not do anything to promote the sense of the sacred, and remind people of the presence of God.

 

[JimG]

Crusader:

My personal favorite constuction is decorative concrete block with a copper roof. Structures like that can not only look good (I demand excellence in design), they can last almost indefinately around here with next to zero exterior maintenance.

Inside I like very rich and traditional stations, ambo, altar, crucifix, pews or chairs with kneelers, baptistry, statuary, etc. etc.

I don’t disagree with you about building materials. The very fact that we have better materials should make it easier, not harder, to have beautiful churches. If there are “very rich and traditional stations, ambo, altar, crucifix”, etc, inside, that’s great. A few stained glass windows wouldn’t hurt, either. And my personal favorite would be a choir loft in the back, with a nice pipe organ.

 

[Crusader]

JimG:

I don’t disagree with you about building materials. The very fact that we have better materials should make it easier, not harder, to have beautiful churches. If there are “very rich and traditional stations, ambo, altar, crucifix”, etc, inside, that’s great. A few stained glass windows wouldn’t hurt, either. And my personal favorite would be a choir loft in the back, with a nice pipe organ.

Stained glass is nice, but it’s not nearly as energy efficient as maintenance free as the new triple paned windows out there.

Pipe organs are also wonderful, but they too are expensive to purchase maintain. Give me a high quality electronic organ anytime.

 

[Crusader]

1. I cannot imagine paying that price for a parcel of land except perhaps in a city (where i am from, land that is more than $10,000/acre is outrageous, though that is what folks pay closer to larger towns). Most parishes do not need more than five acres, especially given that few build a church with a cemetary (of course, i am not in touch with modern RC mega-parish realities that require a social hall, a school, and what all else sprawled out all over the place before a Temple is erected).

1. I was trying to differentiate between the the class of Temple that is now styled “basilica” in Latin Catholic terms (such as St Peter’s or Westminster Abbey) with the actual basilica plan (like St John Lateran).
2. Whatever the preference, sacred art (which is symbolic and representative, based on prior models, and not original and individualistic) as been the norm since the days of the Apostles (did not St Luke write the first ikons? and the woman with the hemorrage have a statue made of Jesus at Caesarea Philippi? and the images in the catacombs?). To have plain, strange structures are apart of no one’s tradition, and do not do anything to promote the sense of the sacred, and remind people of the presence of God.

1.) I live in God’s Country, not Steubenville, OH. Around here a 3 bedroom, 2 bath fixer-upper is $550,000. An acre in a place like Los Angeles that is zoned for churches will cost you better than $2,000,000

2.) I was trying to point out that some wonderful and historic churches have their altars centrally located.

3.) Based on what, your background and tastes? C’mon…