How would your 'dream church' look like?

  • Thread starter Thread starter patrick457
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
aristotle said:
The “dream church” thread is turning from dream to nightmare, and much (most?) of this is my fault. That I find something ugly is certainly my right, but I shouldn’t be expressing it in this thead. Maybe I’ll start a “Nightmare Church” thread, but probably not. It lacks the charity this thread intended.

So I will stop railing on churches I don’t like, and start talking about the churches I do.

I personally love rood screens. The only ones I’ve seen in tact have been in certain old church buildings and chapels in London. And my ancestors were right dandy brits. I personally can think of little as beautiful, evoking all the wonderful springtime romances in my mind of knights and fair ladies.
Click to expand...
Sadly, I’ll agree with you. Everyone, now let us put off the debates for a while; that is for another day and another topic.
 
Spiller said:
But WHY do you feel that way?

The entire building is tinted, poured-in-place architectural concrete that has been bead-blasted and sanded. Quite pricey – designed to last a minimum of 500 years. A feeling of “permanence” permeates the grounds.

So you say. Why? Opps – you haven’t answered my first question yet.

OLAC is not “modern.”

Are you making this up as you go along? The mensa of the altar alone is a 8’x10’x10" thick slab of marble that weight six tons. It’s clear you have never been to this structure. The “chandeliers” are somewhat unfortunate – they are not part of the original design, but each one carries a speaker and were needed to give OLAC the finest sound system of any church in the USA – and likely the entire world.

No again. It’s not a “blank, flat wall.” It’s 7 tapestries that cost more than most suburban churches – or the gaudiest of reredos
http://www.olacathedral.org/zoom/images/altar2.jpg
Of course if is understated to keep the focus on the altar on not on a fancy wall foof.

LOL!!

That’s laughable… That was the comment that put your posting over the top…

Dr. Moneo spent a great deal of time orienting the building on the lot (check it out on Google Earth sometime) with the positioning of the entrance ambulatory and the shape of the sanctuary and the nave – there is not a single right angle in the entire building – very much on purpose.

You couldn’t be more wrong – while the room is 58,000 square feet with an 90’ tall ceiling, it feels much smaller and not boxy, utilitarian or angular in the least. Dr. Moneo clearly did his homework in this area. You are flat-out wrong on this one – but then again you have clearly never visited the venue – else you wouldn’t make such a comment…

Your posting really shows why I wonder about those who feel the need to attack the building without ever visiting it. It’s clear you really have no idea what it would be like to stand next to this building…
Click to expand...
I feel that way because it is asymmetrical, unbalanced, and the sharp angles and general ‘blob’ shape(as it, for it’s size, it doesn’t give the impression of being very ‘verical’). The shape makes one think of an ampitheatre rather than a church.

Being expensive vs cheap doesn’t make it a good church, niether does its feeling of permanence, though they can help.

OLAC is the stereotypical modern church…how could someone possibly consider it anything else? I understand it isn’t contemporary in the sense of the idiotic things they have in Europe(the blob/mushroom churches), but it is still in the modern style(which isn’t by definition bad).

It is irrelevant what the altar is made of, how much it cost, how much it weighs, whatever. It is a large, flat, broad, table, that gives the appearance to western eyes of a fancy picnic table in a park.

The tapestries are vague, and don’t clearly show anything from the distance the photo was taken. Unless they are somehow far clearer in person, they would look like simple screens from the back pew. Again, it is irrelevant how much they cost. From a viewing of the altar area, it is quite clear that the focus is on the priest, or bishop standing behind the altar, not on the eucharist. If you notice, the insane(yes, sometimes they went too far) Gothic high altars bring the focus onto the elevated Host, and make the priest and servers seem tiny and insignificant compared to God and the heavenliness the priest is facing.

That is exactly the point(about the lack of right angles). The building is so asymmetrical and unbalanced, it looks like it is partially collapsed, except for it’s cleaniness. The very excellent feature that I noticed was the sort of built in ‘pillars’ on the sides of the nave, with the carvings or paintings on htem(Can’t tell from the pictures I looked at). These help give it the feeling of height and awe, but the general shape of the sanctuary doesn’t lend itself to this.

Note that I am not condemning everything in this church, or all of its features, or the architect.

I think a modern church should be more in the vein of the Houstin Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Well I’ll be! Disney Hall and the cathedral could be cousins, if not twins. It, too, looks like it is covered in stainless steel.
Click to expand...
That stainless steel monstrosity - there, I’ve said it - IS Disney Hall. The post containing it was misunderstood. The Cathedral looks nothing like that. Walt must be spinning…
 
holdencaulfield said:
I guess no one likes St. Catherine’s Monastery. :o
Click to expand...
I guess I missed it, which post number is it? Lots of churches have been pictured here or links provided. Can’t say I like it or I dont without knowing which one to go to.
 
ThuribleGuy45 said:
That stainless steel monstrosity - there, I’ve said it - IS Disney Hall. The post containing it was misunderstood. The Cathedral looks nothing like that. Walt must be spinning…
Click to expand...
Well no wonder they looked alike to me! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: Guess if I’m going to see what the cathedral looks like on the outside, I had better see if Google has a picture.
 
patrick457 said:
Don’t worry, not all missed it. 😉

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._2003.JPG/280px-Santa_Catarina_Sinai_2003.JPG

Though, could you find a smaller picture (like the above one)? The one you used is a bit too big and might load slowly for those with slower computers.

Here’s a mosaic in the Monastery I particularly like:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Saint_Catherine's_Transfiguration.jpg

Here’s an interesting link:

Some early Icons in the Monastery (6th century or later)
Click to expand...
Oh, I remember now! I’m sorry, but I couldn’t figure it out when I saw it. Is it the whole thing or one of the buildings within the walls? I will say I like the photo of the ceiling very much. I’m not an Eastern Catholic or Orthodox, but I like their decor. I’ll read the link. Maybe I’ll figure out what’s what.
 
ThuribleGuy45 said:
That stainless steel monstrosity - there, I’ve said it - IS Disney Hall. The post containing it was misunderstood. The Cathedral looks nothing like that. Walt must be spinning…
Click to expand...
Wow! That sorta trash-talk is normally reserved for the OLAC.

Too bad you have never seen the DH in real life. Even worse that you have never seen a production there… :rolleyes:

That place is awesome!
 
SenorSalsa said:
More importantly, it was a killing machine. When first built, the sun would catch the metal at a certain point in the day, and sending blinding focused rays of light into the eyes of drivers coming up on a busy intersection. It cause many, many accidents. They had to paint over certain spots with a dull greyish paint to fix the problem
Click to expand...
It killed people? LOL!!!
 
I actually already have mine picked out.

My church is a Romanesque one. The walls are all a pale blue, with three altars - the main, original one that was pulled out from the reredos so that it could be used facing the people(which replaced the freestanding one that looked like **** back in the 70’s) and the two side ones, one to Mary and one to Joseph. There’s statues of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, a model of the Pieta, Mary, Joseph, and then of various angels and the scene at Calvary. There’s also an amazing mural of the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin on the ceiling. Portions of the altar rail remain, and the parts that were removed were made into a credence table, ambo and chairs for Father and the servers, so the whole look is unified.

The only things I would change is have things more pulled together, period. For example, in the reredos, the parts where the altar used to be have different dimensions and aren’t as clean-cut and smooth, so you can see the difference between the two. The wood is all different finishes, so it would be nice to have that all made together. And, above all, I would redo the lighting (more low-wattage stuff instead of a few high-wattage) and repaint the entire church, while completely restoring the mural. The church was painted about twenty years ago, and now it looks a little dingy from the years. The mural also desperately needs to be restored, and it was done partially when they repainted the church and pulled out the altar, but it needs the whole enchilada now.

Oh, and this is more of an internal thing, but I’d get the whole place rewired and get a much, MUCH better sound system. What we have now is confusing(there are about ten light switches for the whole sanctuary, with no sign saying what goes to where, and the system we have is like a PA system, not a church sound system. We need much better mics (especially for the choir loft) and speakers.

And, while I’ve got the ball rolling, a new bell system. We have three massive bells, but unfortunately the church foundation isn’t sound enough to withstand the vibrations from them ringing, so we have made do with an electronic system since the 60’s. However, it has recently quit working outright, and we don’t have the cash on hand to replace it. 😦 It’s especially sad for weddings and funerals and the like, when we can’t ring the bells for them.
 
muffinmojo said:
I feel that way because it is asymmetrical, unbalanced, and the sharp angles and general ‘blob’ shape(as it, for it’s size, it doesn’t give the impression of being very ‘verical’). The shape makes one think of an ampitheatre rather than a church.
Click to expand...
Surprised you are back after your last posting which was so full of errors. OK, in other words OLAC does not meet your personal taste? OK, that’s fair.
muffinmojo said:
Being expensive vs cheap doesn’t make it a good church, niether does its feeling of permanence, though they can help.
Click to expand...
No one suggested it does. OLAC would be great even without those qualities.
muffinmojo said:
OLAC is the stereotypical modern church…how could someone possibly consider it anything else? I understand it isn’t contemporary in the sense of the idiotic things they have in Europe(the blob/mushroom churches), but it is still in the modern style(which isn’t by definition bad).
Click to expand...
Perhaps stereotypical in your mind. “Modern” has a very specific meaning in architecture.
muffinmojo said:
It is irrelevant what the altar is made of, how much it cost, how much it weighs, whatever. It is a large, flat, broad, table, that gives the appearance to western eyes of a fancy picnic table in a park.
Click to expand...
Again, given your tortured taste, I have no question whatsoever that you view it that way. What, not going to call it “tiny” again this time?
muffinmojo said:
The tapestries are vague, and don’t clearly show anything from the distance the photo was taken. Unless they are somehow far clearer in person, they would look like simple screens from the back pew. Again, it is irrelevant how much they cost. From a viewing of the altar area, it is quite clear that the focus is on the priest, or bishop standing behind the altar, not on the eucharist.
Click to expand...
More personal taste… My attention was on what was taking place on top of the altar and not the celebrant. I guess we just differ there.
muffinmojo said:
If you notice, the insane(yes, sometimes they went too far) Gothic high altars bring the focus onto the elevated Host, and make the priest and servers seem tiny and insignificant compared to God and the heavenliness the priest is facing.
Click to expand...
No thanks.
muffinmojo said:
That is exactly the point(about the lack of right angles). The building is so asymmetrical and unbalanced, it looks like it is partially collapsed, except for it’s cleaniness. The very excellent feature that I noticed was the sort of built in ‘pillars’ on the sides of the nave, with the carvings or paintings on htem(Can’t tell from the pictures I looked at). These help give it the feeling of height and awe, but the general shape of the sanctuary doesn’t lend itself to this.
Click to expand...
Nothing “unbalanced” about it. In fact its balance is sublime – again you would not know this as you have never set foot inside the structure. Further, there is nothing wrong with it not being symmetrical – that’s one of the very qualities that keeps like from feeling like a warehouse or a bowling alley much like other churches.
muffinmojo said:
Note that I am not condemning everything in this church, or all of its features, or the architect.
Click to expand...
Which one did you use? I forget – “awful”, “monstrosity”, etc?
muffinmojo said:
I think a modern church should be more in the vein of the Houstin Co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart.
Click to expand...
Again more personal taste. I won’t comment because I have never visited that venue.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Oh, I remember now! I’m sorry, but I couldn’t figure it out when I saw it. Is it the whole thing or one of the buildings within the walls? I will say I like the photo of the ceiling very much. I’m not an Eastern Catholic or Orthodox, but I like their decor. I’ll read the link. Maybe I’ll figure out what’s what.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of churches inside the Monastery; the picture depicts the apse mosaic of the main church:

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/cbuilding21.jpg

A plan of the Monastery (the main church is the one in dark blue):

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/cbuildings23.jpg
 
patrick457 said:
Don’t worry, not all missed it. 😉

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._2003.JPG/280px-Santa_Catarina_Sinai_2003.JPG

Though, could you find a smaller picture (like the above one)? The one you used is a bit too big and might load slowly for those with slower computers.

Here’s a mosaic in the Monastery I particularly like:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Saint_Catherine's_Transfiguration.jpg

Here’s an interesting link:

Some early Icons in the Monastery (6th century or later)
Click to expand...
I wish we had a few walled edifices in the USA. There is something about battlements, or even just a substantial brick wall.
I’m reminded of a ship on the ocean or an oasis amidst chaos. Maybe that was the intended effect?
 
Spiller said:
Surprised you are back after your last posting which was so full of errors. OK, in other words OLAC does not meet your personal taste? OK, that’s fair.

No one suggested it does. OLAC would be great even without those qualities.

Perhaps stereotypical in your mind. “Modern” has a very specific meaning in architecture.

Again, given your tortured taste, I have no question whatsoever that you view it that way. What, not going to call it “tiny” again this time?

More personal taste… My attention was on what was taking place on top of the altar and not the celebrant. I guess we just differ there.

No thanks.

Nothing “unbalanced” about it. In fact its balance is sublime – again you would not know this as you have never set foot inside the structure. Further, there is nothing wrong with it not being symmetrical – that’s one of the very qualities that keeps like from feeling like a warehouse or a bowling alley much like other churches.

Which one did you use? I forget – “awful”, “monstrosity”, etc?

Again more personal taste. I won’t comment because I have never visited that venue.
Click to expand...
Please, as per the wishes of others, this thread is for discussing what we like, not debates. This debate is fruitless and uncharitable anyway, and I hope we can both learn to deal with fellow Christians in a more loving way at some point, as neither of us are doing a stellar job of that, over something as (relatively) trivial as what a church looks like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top