New Cathedral in Oakland, CA

  • Thread starter Thread starter bankerdavid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SenorSalsa said:
I want to know what it is, especially in the second example that is more concrete, how it is possible to distinguish a church from another building. What are the architectural queues that immediately make a church look different than any other builiding
Click to expand...
In his eye-opening book Ugly As Sin: How They Changed Our Churches from Sacred Spaces to Meeting Spaces and How We Can Get Them Back Again, Michael Rose lays out the three “natural laws of church architecture”:

Law #1) “A Catholic church must have verticality.” The Oakland cathedral seems to meet this law.

Law #2) “A Catholic church must have permanence.” This is more than just about not placing the altar on casters. It is debatable whether the Oakland cathedral meets this law, because according to Rose, this includes the idea of massing. “The church must be of significant mass, built with solid foundations, thick walls, and allowing for generous interior spaces.” (Obviously the Oakland cathedral’s design is affected by its earthquake resistance.)

But more importantly, Rose then says under law #2: “Continuity. Churches whose design grows organically out of the past two millennia of churches identify themselves with the life of the Church throughout those two millennia and, by their continuity with the history and tradition of Catholic church architecture, manifest in another way the permanence of the Faith.”

Rose continues: “In other words, to convey that aspect of permanence rooted in continuity, the architectural language of the churches must develop organically throughout time, such as when the language of the Renaissance churches permutated into the Baroque language, or when the Gothic forms emerged from the language of the Romanesque.”

He continues: “In both cases, the growth of the language was organic. The style may have changed, as when the semicircular arch gave way to the pointed arch. But here was no sudden break with tradition, no disregard for the churches of past centuries (arches were as much a part of the Gothic language as the Romanesque). Architects built on what they knew from the past, refining certain aspects of the language and developing others…the architect who breaks completely with architectural tradition robs his church of the quality of permanence that is essential to any successful church design. An authentic Catholic church building is a work of art that acknowledges the previous greatness of the Church’s architectural patrimony: it refers to the past, serves the present, and informs the future.”

By this measure, the Oakland cathedral fails miserably.

Law #3) “A Catholic church must have iconography.” The Oakland cathedral fails this law, too, but I’m not going to type it all out. If you want to read why, buy the book! 😉
 
Neil_Anthony said:
Besides being all glass, I don’t find them very similar. And lots of modern buildings are all glass.
Click to expand...
Churches are supposed to be a taste of heaven…an inner sanctuary that gives a sense of order from the chaos of the world. A church that is all glass is one that puts the emphasis on the world since the eyes are naturally drawn outside.

That’s one of the reasons why, when glass was used, traditionally it was stained glass.
 
Lepanto said:
Churches are supposed to be a taste of heaven…an inner sanctuary that gives a sense of order from the chaos of the world. A church that is all glass is one that puts the emphasis on the world since the eyes are naturally drawn outside.

That’s one of the reasons why, when glass was used, traditionally it was stained glass.
Click to expand...
See, in the crystal cathedral, your eyes would be drawn outside. But in the new Oakland cathedral, you can’t see outside. The light from outside is used to illuminate the big picture of Christ, and the wooden thingies and the panels just let a bit of light in without letting you see outside
 
Lepanto said:
Churches are supposed to be a taste of heaven…an inner sanctuary that gives a sense of order from the chaos of the world. A church that is all glass is one that puts the emphasis on the world since the eyes are naturally drawn outside.

That’s one of the reasons why, when glass was used, traditionally it was stained glass.
Click to expand...
I have found two catholic churches where the use of clear glass has actually added to the awe of the church. The first church is in Bishop, CA. The window behind the altar perfectly frames the Sierra Nevada’s. The other is in Incline Village, NV. The church is set on a hillside, and the window behind the altar frames a portion of Lake Tahoe and the tops of pine trees. It both cases, for me, seeing the beauty of God’s creation behind the altar and crucifix touches me deeply.
 
For $190,000,000 they could have rebuilt a replica of the old Cathedral they were replacing which is shown in the video.

**THAT’S **what a Cathedral should look like.
 
One of the posters has been asking for what principles (“magic”) make a building look like a Catholic church.

Beside the responses already provided, these two current articles from the Adoremus Bulletin, one about a new shrine and one about a new monastery help to explain such attributes:

adoremus.org/0908GuadalupeShrine.html

adoremus.org/0908AnnunciationMonastery.html

Unfortunately, the online articles do not have the photos which are in the print edition of the Adoremus Bulletin. If interested, contact them and get a copy of the Sept. 2008 issue.

When these architectural principles are properly employed, we do not end up with $190 million Catholic cathedrals that look like this:

http://whalonlab.msu.edu/Student_We...ar_Waste/E.C project/nuclear-power-tower1.jpg

http://www.explorepahistory.com/images/ExplorePAHistory-a0a4z9-a_349.jpg
 
Roamin_Xian said:
Are they? Wow, because the past two Popes sure have spent a great deal of time talking with or being around Protestants and other non-Catholics. In friendly and ecumenical ways, too.
Click to expand...
Hanging around with heretics does not make you a heretic. Didn’t someone in the bible ask us to love our enemies? Our love does not change the fact that they are still the enemies of the Truth.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
Can you give any examples of office buildings, concert halls or spaceships that look like this cathedral? Pictures would be helpful.

I thought protestant churches were simple and plain and inexpensive? This cathedral is anything but those qualities.
Click to expand...
Some office buildings:

http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007/10/24/public_utilities_building.jpg



http://www.krjda.com/images/Shanghai_1.jpg

When I said protestant I was refering to non-catholic Christians. I will be more specific in the future so as not to confuse you. Here is the Crystal Cathedral:

http://neatorama.cachefly.net/images/2007-05/crystal-cathedral-exterior.jpg
 
Neil_Anthony said:
I don’t think these look like the new Oakland cathedral. They go straight up, the new cathedral is angled, like a church. Those buildings look like glass office buildings. Are you sure they’re churches?
Click to expand...
They are office buildings. That is why I wrote “Some office buildings:” before the pictures. That last picture is of a church.

All of these are of modern shape and all glass. I believe that is the similarity to the Oakland Church and what makes the Oakland Chruch non-traditional.
 
thedavidwilson said:
They are office buildings. That is why I wrote “Some office buildings:” before the pictures. That last picture is of a church.

All of these are of modern shape and all glass. I believe that is the similarity to the Oakland Church and what makes the Oakland Chruch non-traditional.
Click to expand...
Not really, just because they are glass, they aren’t shaped like a church. Just because old churches are stone, doesnt mean they look the same as other old stone buildings. Its the shape that matters. Those office buildings are all straight up, the church has a fish-shapey thingy
 
Neil_Anthony said:
Not really, just because they are glass, they aren’t shaped like a church. Just because old churches are stone, doesnt mean they look the same as other old stone buildings. Its the shape that matters. Those office buildings are all straight up, the church has a fish-shapey thingy
Click to expand...
Good grief.
Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. It was said that the Oakland church resembled office buildings, and proof to support this opinion was provided.

Let it go already.
 
RLT said:
Good grief.
Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. It was said that the Oakland church resembled office buildings, and proof to support this opinion was provided.

Let it go already.
Click to expand...
So you also can’t see the difference between the office buildings and the church? It’s pretty obvious to me. The straight-up ones are office buildings, but the angled one with the Fish symbol and giant icon of Christ is the church. ??? where’s the confusion?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top